BX 7149 
.N37 T9 
Copy 1 




i££Si 



^rcsscarcrasg g 



i3L£H*^j^: 



«v33K7KC71Sa: 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, % 
chap. .JMmAR | 

Shelf -^MSltf 






UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



LETTERS 



ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 



From a New England Minister to one at the South. 

< 




NEW YORK. 
ROBERT CARTER AND EZRA COLLIER, 

M DCCC XXXVII. 






Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1837, by 

CASE, TIFFANY AND COMPANY, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut. 



Printed by 

CASE, TIFFANY & CO. 

Hartford, Con. 






PREFACE. 

The circumstances which have led to the publica- 
tion of this little volume, are the following : In the 
month of February, 1837, the author received a letter 
from a distinguished clergyman in one of the Southern 
States, requesting some information respecting the 
origin and progress of the New Divinity in New 
England. He probably expected no more than a 
single letter, in reply. The author, however, in 
attempting to answer his inquiries, soon perceived 
that he could not give the desired information in 
a single letter. He accordingly concluded to write a 
series of letters, and commit them to the disposal of his 
correspondent, who judged it expedient to give them 
to the public through the press. They were first pub- 
lished in the Southern Christian Herald, and have been 
copied into several other papers in different parts of the 
country. The interest excited by them is far greater 
than was anticipated by the writer. They are now col- 
lected into a volume, at the earnest request of many 
who have read them, and with the hope that they may 
contribute something to the cause of truth. 

The object of these letters, is to give a brief, but 
faithful account of what has sometimes been denomina- 
ted the New Haven controversy. Considering the 



IV PREFACE. 

interest awakened by this controversy, it is obviously 
important that its history should be known ; and that 
the points of doctrine involved in it, should be clearly 
understood. And this is the more important at the 
present time, on account of the pains which have been 
taken to make the impression that the New Haven 
Divinity is New England Divinity, and in this way to 
excite prejudice in the Presbyterian church against the 
whole of ^New England. Several of the last letters in 
the series, are intended to set this matter in its true 
light. By a comparison of the writings of the New 
Haven divines with those of the standard theological 
writers of New England, it is shown, that they not only do 
not harmonize, but are widely at variance ; and that in 
relation to fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. 
In revising these letters, the writer has made some 
slight alterations in the phraseology ; and added a few 
quotations, for the purpose of giving a more full view of 
the controversy to those who have had but a limited 
acquaintance with the public discussions of the last eight 
or ten years. 



LETTER I. 



February 10, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

Although I never had the pleasure of seeing 
your face, I have for some time felt acquainted 
with you, having heard so much respecting you 
from our mutual friend, Mr. Nettleton. I was 
therefore fully prepared to reciprocate every ex- 
pression of confidence contained in your kind 
and friendly letter of the first inst. I can assure 
you that brother N. remembers with deep inter- 
est the season which he spent under your hospi- 
table roof; and that he will ever cherish a grateful 
sense of the tokens of affection which he receiv- 
ed from you and your family. And here permit 
me to say, that, having been intimately acquaint- 
ed with him for the last five and twenty years, I 
can cheerfully subscribe to every word which 
you have said in testimony of his worth. 

But I must proceed to answer your inquiries 
respecting " the origin and progress of Arminian 
views in New England." I suppose you refer to 
the New Haven speculations. I have had oppor- 
tunity to know something of the history of these 
1* 



O ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

speculations ; but the story is long, and cannot 
be told in a single letter. If you will have pa- 
tience with me, I will attempt to give you a brief 
history in a series of letters, promising to bring 
my narrative within as narrow compass as pos- 
sible. 

It is true, as was stated by Dr. Porter in his 
letter to Dr. Beecher, that " Arminianism re- 
ceived from the hand of Edwards its death blow, 
of which it lingered more than half a century in 
New England and died. Our orthodoxy had set- 
tled into a solid, tranquil, scriptural state ; and 
perhaps no body of ministers since the world 
began have been so united, and so manifestly 
blessed of God, as the ministers of New Eng- 
land." Such was the state of things, when, as 
Dr. Porter says — " A battery was opened in 
Connecticut, a standard raised, and a campaign 
begun." 

The first indications that the New Haven di- 
vines were beginning to adopt opinions at vari- 
ance with those which commonly prevailed 
among the orthodox, appeared while the con- 
troversy between Dr. Woods of Andover, and 
Dr. Ware of Cambridge, was in progress; which 
was in 1820, '21. Dr. Taylor expressed to some 
of his brethren great dissatisfaction with the 
manner in which Dr. Woods had conducted the 
controversy, and with the views which he had 
advanced, particularly on the subject of Native 
Depravity. He was heard to say, that on that 
subject Dr. Ware had the better of the argu- 
ment, and that Dr. Woods had put back the con- 
troversy with Unitarians fifty years. Under the 
impulse of these feelings, he prepared an article 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 7 

for the Christian Spectator, which he submitted 
to the association of gentlemen, by whom, in 
connexion with the editor, the work was conduct- 
ed. The Association decided that it was not 
expedient to publish the article. Of the charac- 
ter of the piece, and the sentiments which it 
contained, you may perhaps form some conjec- 
ture from the following circumstance. While 
Dr. Taylor was reading it, one of the gentlemen 
present composed and wrote with his pencil this 
.stanza : 

Immortal Edwards, whom religion bails 
Her favorite son/a Taylor overthrew ; 
A Taylor now the great man's ghost assails, 
His doctrine doubts, and error vamps anew. 

I am not able to fix the precise date of this 
event. I am not certain whether it was previous 
or subsequent to the fact which I am about to 
relate. On Saturday evening, Dec. 15, 1821, 
Professor Goodrich of Yale College, in his course 
of lectures to the college students, came to the 
doctrine of Original Sin. He commenced his 
lecture by observing that he was about to present 
a different view of the subject from that which is 
commonly received; and proceeded to exhibit 
the views which were afterwards published in the 
Christian Spectator ; and which I shall have oc- 
casion to notice in a future letter. Some of the 
pious students, who had read the controversy 
between Dr. Woods and Dr. Ware, thought that 
the views exhibited in this lecture bore a strik- 
ing resemblance to those of Dr. Ware. They 
were grieved and alarmed. Some of them wrote 
to their friends, and in this way considerable un- 
easiness was excited. Mr. Nettleton was at this 



O ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

time laboring in Litchfield with Dr. Beecher, 
On hearing what had transpired at New Haven, 
Dr. Beecher wrote to Dr. Taylor, and some cor- 
respondence ensued. Professor Goodrich sent 
his lecture to Litchfield. About that time Dr. 
Humphrey, then pastor of the church in Pitts- 
field, now President of Amherst College, hap- 
pened to be there on a visit. He and Mr. Net- 
tleton examined it together, and were greatly 
dissatisfied. Dr. Beecher did not approve of the 
views expressed by Professor Goodrich and Dr. 
Taylor ; yet in his correspondence at this time, 
he made some concessions with which Mr. Net- 
tleton was not satisfied : and in a letter which 
he (Mr. N.) wrote to Dr. Taylor, he said : 

" With all my love and respect for brothers 
Taylor and Goodrich and Beecher, I must say 
that neither my judgment, nor concience, nor 
heart, can acquiesce, and I can go with you no 
farther. Whatever you may say about infants, 
for one, I do solemnly believe that God views, 
and treats them in all respects, just as he would 
do if they were sinners. To say that animals 
die, and therefore death can be no proof of sin 
in infants, is to take infidel ground. The infidel 
has just as good a right to say, because animals 
die without being sinners, therefore adults may. 
If death may reign to such an alarming extent 
over the human race, and yet be no proof of 
sin, then you adopt the principle that death may 
reign to any extent over the universe, and it can 
never be made a proof of sin in any case. Then 
what Paul says " Death by sin, and so death 
passed upon all men for that all have sinned," is 
not true. Infants die either on account of their 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 9 

own sin, or the sin of Adam, or neither. Hence 
the most that Paul can mean is this, death by sin, 
if they live long enough; if not, they shall die 
without it. You may speculate better than I 
can ; bat I know one thing better than you do. 
I know better what Christians will, and what 
they will not receive ; and I forewarn you that 
whenever you come out, our best Christians will 
revolt. I felt a deep interest in the controversy 
between the Orthodox and Unitarians, while it 
was kept out on the open field of Total Deprav- 
ity, Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, Divine 
Sovereignty, and Election. For this was taking 
the enemy by the heart, and I knew who would 
conquer. But you are giving the discussion a 
bad turn, and I have lost all my interest in the 
subject, and do not wish my fellow sinners to 
hear it. I do fear it is a trick of the devil to 
send brother Taylor on a wild goose chase after 
what he will never find, and which if found would 
not be worth one straw." These are only short 
extracts from a long letter. The whole has not 
been preseived. This letter Mr. Nettleton read 
to Dr. Beecher. 

This was in December, 1821. After this Mr. 
Nettleton had repeated private discussions with 
the brethren at New Haven, in which he express- 
ed his dissatisfaction with their peculiar views, 
and faithfully expostulated with them on the dan- 
ger of causing division among the ministers and 
churches of New England. And yet for several 
years it was currently reported, and extensively 
believed, that he agreed with the New Haven 
divines, and the influence of his name was made 
use of to give currency to their peculiar views. 



10 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

How unjustly this was done, is evident from the 
foregoing extracts. The alarm which was occa- 
sioned among the pious students, by the lecture 
of Professor Goodrich, was somewhat allayed by 
some explanations which he made to them, and 
for a season the matter was in a great measure 
hushed. But Mr. Nettleton, and some others 
who were acquainted with the facts, were not 
without great solicitude. Meanwhile the Pro- 
fessorship of Didactic Theology was founded in 
Yale College, Dr. Taylor was appointed Profes- 
sor, and the Theological School was organized 
in its present form in 1822. The founders of 
this Professorship, required the Professor to sign 
the following declaration : " I hereby declare my 
free assent to the Confession of Faith and Ec- 
clesiastical Discipline, agreed upon by the 
churches of the State, in the year 1708." Dr. 
Taylor signed this declaration and was inducted 
into office. The Confession of Faith here speci- 
fied is what has been denominated the Saybrook 
Platform, and so far as doctrines are concerned, 
differs scarcely at all from the Confession of Faith 
of the Presbyterian Church. 

In 1826, Professor Fitch preached and pub- 
lished his discourses on the nature of sin, in 
which he advanced the position that all sin con- 
sists in the voluntary transgression of known 
law. This was regarded by many as a virtual 
denial of original sin and native depravity as 
maintained by Calvinists. These discourses 
were reviewed by Dr. Green in the Christian Ad- 
vocate. Professor Fitch replied to the Review. 
Meanwhile young men began to issue from the 
New Haven school, and to proclaim the discov- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 11 

eries of their teacher. In this way very consid- 
erable alarm was created in some quarters. Still 
those who were dissatisfied dreaded an explosion 
which should hazard the peace of the churches, 
and refrained from publishing their views ; and 
all hope of avoiding a public controversy was not 
given up till Dr. Taylor published his Concio ad 
Clerum. Some account of this, and the contro- 
vert which it occasioned, I will give you in my 
next letter. 

Yours very affectionately, 



LETTER II. 

February 13, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

Dr. Taylor's " Concio ad Clerum" was preach^ 
ed in the Chapel of Yale College on the evening 
of Commencement, Sept. 10, 1828. It was soon 
after published. This was the commencement 
of the public controversy in New England. The 
object of the sermon was, to exhibit and establish 
the author's views of the doctrine of native de- 
pravity ; it was apparent from the whole strain of 
the sermon, that the preacher was conscious that 
the views which he was exhibiting were different 
from those which were commonly received. He 
attempted to demolish what he called " very com- 
mon, but groundless assumptions — assumptions 
which, so long as they are admitted and reasoned 
upon, must leave the subject involved in insuper- 
able difficulties." In one of his notes, after stat- 
ing the different forms of the doctrine of deprav- 
ity, which he supposed to be held by the ortho- 
dox, placing that form of it which he adopted 
last, he says, " Those who reject the last form of 
it, and adopt either of the preceding forms, will, 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 13 

it is hoped, favor the world with some better ar- 
guments on the subject than have hitherto been 
furnished."' This was throwing down the gaunt- 
let and challenging a controversy. But I must 
give you some account of the sermon. 

The text was Eph. ii. 3 : And were by nature 
children of wrath even as others. The doctrine 
of the text, he stated to be, " that the entire mor- 
al depravity of man is by nature." The state- 
ment of this doctrine seemed to give promise 
that he was about to exhibit the common views 
on this subject. But in his explanations* of the 
nature of depravity, and of the sense in which it 
is by nature, he w 7 as understood to advance prin- 
ciples utterly inconsistent with his main proposi- 
tion — principles which lead to the conclusion 
that there is in man no natural hereditary pro- 
pensity to sin, and that there was no real con- 
nexion between the sin of Adam and that of his 
posterity. Moral depravity he defines to be, " a 
man's own act, consisting of a free choice of 
some object rather than God, as his chief good ; 
or a free preference of the world and worldly 
good, to the will and glory of God." By man- 
kind being depraved by nature, he says, " I do 
not mean that their nature is itself sinful, nor 
that their nature is the physical or efficient cause 
of their sinning; but I mean that their nature is 
the occasion or reason of their sinning; that such 
is their nature, that in all the appropriate circum- 
stances of their being, they will sin, and only 
sin." But he elsewhere maintains, that all men 
come into the world with the same nature in kind 
as that with which Adam was created, and which 
the Child Jesus possessed. 
2 



14 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

If this be true ; it is certainly difficult to see 
how their nature can be in any sense the cause 
or reason of their sinning ; or how there can be 
any hereditary corruption of nature, or any real 
connexion between the sin of Adam and that of 
his posterity. Towards the close of the sermon, 
in reply to the inquiry, why God permitted man 
to sin, he says, " Do you know that God could 
have done better, better on the whole, or better, 
if he gave him existence at all, even for the indi- 
vidual himself! The error lies in the gratuitous 
assumption, that God could have adopted a mor- 
al system, and prevented all sin, or at least, the 
present degree of sin." 

This subject he resumes in a note, and pro- 
ceeds at some length, to show that the reason 
why God does not prevent all sin in the moral 
universe and make all his rational creatures holy 
and happy, is, that it is not possible for him to do 
it. He says, " If holiness in a moral system be 
preferable on the whole to sin in its stead, why 
did not a benevolent God, were it possible to him, 
prevent all sin, and secure the prevalence of uni- 
versal holiness? Would not a moral universe of 
perfect holiness, be happier and better than one 
comprising sin and its miseries ? And must not 
infinite benevolence accomplish all the good it 
can? Would not a benevolent God then, had it 
been possible to him in the nature of things, have 
secured the existence of universal holiness in his 
moral kingdom?" Again he says, " Who does 
most reverence to God, he who supposes that 
God would have prevented all sin in his moral 
universe, but could not ; or he who affirms that 
he could have prevented it, but would not?" 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 15 

This note gave great dissatisfaction, and was 
extensively regarded as a virtual denial of the 
Omnipotence, and universal Providence of God, 
and as being utterly subversive of the Calvinistic 
doctrine of the divine decrees. It called forth, 
as I shall have occasion to mention hereafter, 
the letters of Dr. Woods to Dr. Taylor, which 
were published in 1830. This sermon was re- 
viewed by the Rev. Dr. Harvey. The reviewer 
points out what he conceives to be the peculiar- 
ities of sentiment contained in the sermon, and 
attempts to show that they are inconsistent both 
with the Bible, and with the writings of the stan- 
dard orthodox New Endand divines. To this 
review a reply was published in the Christian 
Spectator, ascribed, at first, to the Rev. Dr. Por- 
ter, of Farmington, but ascertained afterwards to 
have been written principally by Professor Good- 
rich. It comprised the substance of his lecture 
to the College Students, in 1821, of which some 
notice was taken in my last letter. 

In this reply the following principles are clear- 
ly maintained, viz : That infants possess no 
moral character — that they sustain precisely the 
same relation to the moral government of God, 
as brute animals — that suffering and death are no 
more proof of sin in them than in brutes — that 
salvation by Christ in their case denotes deliver- 
ance from the future existence of sin and its con- 
sequences, and that it is proper to baptize them, 
not because they need sanctitication, but because 
they will need it, if they live to become moral 
agents. The fact that all men become sinners 
is accounted for in the following manner : " A 
child enters the world with a variety of appetites 



lb ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

and desires, which are generally acknowledged 
to be neither sinful nor holy. Committed in a 
state of utter helplessness to the assiduity of pa- 
rental fondness, it commences existence, the 
object of unceasing care, watchfulness, and con- 
cession to those around it. Under such circum- 
stances it is, that the natural appetites are first 
developed, and each advancing month brings 
new objects of gratification. The obvious con- 
sequence is, that self-indulgence becomes the 
master principle in the soul of every child, long 
before it can understand that this self-indulgence 
will interfere with the rights, or intrench on the 
happiness of others. Thus by repetition is the 
force of constitutional propensities accumula- 
ting a bias towards self-gratification, which be- 
comes incredibly strong, before a knowledge of 
duty or a sense of right and wrong, can possibly 
have entered the mind. That moment, the com- 
mencement of moral agency at length arrives." 

Thus the universal sinfulness of mankind is 
accounted for, not from any corruption of nature 
derived from Adam, but from the circumstances 
in which mankind are placed in early infancy. 
An able answer to this article was published, sup- 
posed to have been written by Dr. Harvey, to 
which Dr. Taylor made a short reply. The con- 
troversy thus far, was confined principally tofthe 
doctrine of native depravity, although the note in 
Dr. Taylor's sermon respecting God's ability to 
prevent sin, was not passed over without due an- 
imadversion. 

You will be interested to know what were the 
views of your friend Mr. Nettleton, at this stage 
of the controversy. The following extract of a 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 17 

letter written by him to Dr. Beecher at this peri- 
od, will give you some information. The 
letter is dated at Enfield, Mass, Sept. 18, 1829. 

" While at Amherst, I read through Dr. Tay- 
lor of Norwich, and much of Edwards in reply. 
And I must say, that so far as I understand the 
subject, the sentiments of our New Haven breth- 
ren, are more in accordance with the former, 
than with the latter. And so far as the interpre- 
tation of the Bible is concerned, brother Tay- 
lor's students, some of them at least, (whether 
they are conscious of it or not, I cannot say,) in 
every important particular, are fully with Dr. 
Taylor of Norwich, and at war with Edwards. 
The Reviewer of Taylor and Harvey does not 
give us the meaning of the texts which seem to 
cross his path ; but he has adopted principles 
which are at war with all that Edwards has writ- 
ten on original sin, and the nature of regenera- 
tion. If the sentiments contained in that Re- 
view be correct, then Edwards was wrong in his 
interpretation of every text in his piece on ori- 
ginal sin. Brother Taylor has not come to the 
most important part of his work — to give us the 
meaning of the Bible. After abandoning impu- 
tation, and what he calls physical depravity, 
we shall be compelled to adopt the sentiments 
of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, and genuine Ar- 
minianism, or actual sin from the commence- 
ment of the soul, or deny that infants need re- 
demption by Christ, and regeneration by the Ho- 
ly Spirit; or if they do need redemption, it must 
be a redemption from something which is not 
sinful in any sense, and if they need regeneration, 
it must be a change of something which is not 
2* 



18 . ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

sinful in any sense. If the soul be innocent, it 
can be redeemed from nothing, and can never 
join the song of the redeemed, " unto him that 
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own 
blood/' If the soul be innocent, it can be 
regenerated, only for the worse. Then, if you 
doubt, as some are beginning to do, whether the 
soul commences at birth, would it not be idle to 
reason about the nature of that which has no ex- 
istence. To admit the necessity of redemption 
by the blood of Christ, and of regeneration by 
the supernatural influences of the Holy Spirit, 
of something of whose nature we know nothing, 
and of whose existence we doubt, is bad philoso- 
phy as well as bad theology. I say these things 
to show that brother Taylor cannot stand where 
he is. His students, some of them at least, do 
not take the ground assumed in his printed ser- 
mon, that infants need redemption and regene- 
ration. When interrogated by ecclesiastical 
bodies, "Have infants souls?" the answer 
sometimes is, " I do not know." " Do they need 
redemption?" " I do not know." " Is it prop- 
er to pray for them?" " I do not know." " What 
is the meaning of such and such texts ?" "I do 
not know." Now I do not wonder that minis- 
ters are alarmed at the New Haven Theology. 
Interrogatories like those above will always be 
put to his students, when examined by ecclesias- 
tical bodies. And since the alarm occasioned 
by the recent publications, I anticipate that min- 
isters will be better prepared, more critical and 
sensitive than ever, on all these points. And if 
Dr. Taylor cannot furnish his pupils with plain 
answers, and answers, too, that shall comport 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 19 

with his printed sermon, I think they will be in a 
worse predicament than ever. 

" I have just received the last number of the 
Christian Spectator, and Harvey's and Taylor's 
pamphlets, issued on commencement day. I have 
read them through, but have not time or room 
to give my thoughts on paper. Harvey has 
adopted nearly my views, and Taylor in some 
places admits, and then again rejects them. Now 
H he admits that infants are sinners from their 
birth," p. 30 ; and this is in perfect accordance 
with his admission that they have souls — Ci need 
redemption by Christ" — "regeneration by the 
Holy Spirit." And now why hesitate to admit 
that death in their case is " by sin ?" But this he 
will not admit, but tries to evade it, and to prove 
their innocence refers to Deut. i. 39 : " Moreover, 
your little ones which ye said should be a prey, 
and your children, which in that day had no 
knowledge between good and evil, they shall go 
in thither." These " little ones and children" 
were all from twenty years old and under. See 
Num. xxxii. 11. They were not summoned to 
the field of battle, to go up and take possession 
of Canaan, and hence it is said, they " had no 
knowledge between good and evil," quoad hoc. 
If that proves any thing to brother Taylor's pur- 
pose, it proves that all mankind under twenty 
years of age, are not moral agents, and are, of 
course, innocent. He quotes, also, and so does 
Professor Stuart, Jonah, iv. 11. I have formerly 
heard these same texts quoted for the same pur- 
pose by Methodists, and other Arminians, and I 
feel disposed to give the old answer. 1. It wants 
proof that they were infants. 2. " Cannot dis- 



20 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 

cern between their right hand and their left" is a 
proverbial expression, denoting great ignorance 
in adults, and is no where applied to infants. 3. 
It is incredible that Ninevah should contain 
120,000 infants. 4. It would better accord with 
the book of Jonah, and with our Lord's account 
of their ignorance, to admit that the 120,000 em- 
braced the entire population who repented at the 
preaching of Jonah, and that the city was spared 
on account of their repentance, and not for the 
sake of infants, thus making void their repen- 
tance." 

We have now arrived at a period in the history 
of the New Haven speculations when the dis- 
satisfaction became quite extensive. Several 
events occurred in the course of this year, which 
it will be important to notice, and of which I will 
give you some account in my next letter. 

Yours, very affectionately. 



LETTER III. 

February 17, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

In the year 1829, while the controversy men- 
tioned in my last letter was going on, a series of 
articles was published in the Christian Spectator, 
on the Means of Regeneration, purporting to be 
a Review of Dr. Spring's dissertation on that 
subject. In these articles, which were written 
by Dr. Taylor, the writer maintains, that antece- 
dent to regeneration, the selfish principle is sus- 
pended in the sinner's heart, and that then, 
prompted by self-love, he uses the means of regen- 
eration with motives that are neither sinful nor 
holy. The manner in which the subject is dis- 
cussed, seemed to many, to be utterly inconsis- 
ent with the views commonly entertained by the 
orthodox on this fundamental doctrine of the 
Christian faith. Mr. Nettleton, in his letter to 
Dr. Beecher, an extract from which was inserted 
in my last letter, says in reference to this subject: 

" As to Dr. Taylor's last piece on the means 
of regeneration, it seems to me that he has 
turned the thing bottom upwards. In his des- 
cription of the means of regeneration, he includes 
the exercises or evidences of a new heart. The 



22 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

carnal mind, which is enmity against God, sus- 
pends all its enmity, and selfishness, and sin, and 
then goes to work on the principle of self-love. 
How long the sinner continues in this state of 
neutrality he does not inform us. But no mat- 
ter ; the sinner does not use the means, of a new 
heart until the old heart is gone, and he is in a 
state favorably disposed, like the prodigal son 
after he came to himself. No sinner ever did 
what brother Taylor considers as using the means 
of regeneration, until God had first regenerated 
him. The distinction between supreme selfish- 
ness and self-love, in the impenitent, exists only 
in theory, never in matter of fact. Suppose a 
sinner should go to brother Taylor and address 
him as follows : i I have always been dissatisfied 
with the old doctrine of the entire sinfulness of 
the doings of the unregenerate, and therefore 
have done nothing to make a new heart; but 
when I saw your views I was pleased ; I found 
that I was right, that sin could never be the 
means of holiness, but that the exercise of self- 
love might be. Accordingly, I have suspended 
all my selfishness, and have not committed a sin- 
gle sin for some time past, and have been to work 
on your plan, from a desire for happiness, or a 
principle of self-love. Thus I have made me a 
new heart. 5 How would Dr. Taylor be pleased 
with such an account. To me it sounds like 
the talk of a Pharisee. No sinner ever suspen- 
ded his selfishness, until subdued by divine grace. 
The carnal mind, the enmity against God, the 
heart of stone, remains, until slain, subdued, or 
taken away, by the Holy Spirit." 

This letter was written Sept. 18, 1829. Three 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 23 

numbers of the treatise on the means of regene- 
ration had then been published. A fourth num* 
ber appeared in December, designed to obviate 
objections, containing some statements which, 
in the view of many, were utterly inconsistent 
with what had been published in the previous 
numbers. Dr. Porter, of Andover, speaking of 
this in a letter to a friend, says : 

" Dr. Taylor's closing number on means, was 
a designed modification of the former ones, 
partly at the suggestion of Dr. Beecher. The 
latter told him that he had employed terms badly 
in speaking of the l suspension of selfishness.' 
All that Dr. Taylor means, said he to me, is that 
' the carnal mind is held in check, or does not 
act, and not that it is extinct/ ' While this car- 
nal mind is thus checked, has it moral qualities V 
said I. i Doubtless/ he replied. ' Is it sinful, 
or holy, or neither?' (Pause.) c The man is 
doubtless a sinner,' said he. ' Can one who pug- 
naciously and ostentatiously maintains that all 
sin consists in action, maintain too that a carnal 
mind is sinful when its action has ceased V (No 
reply.) " 

These articles on the means of regeneration, 
created serious alarm in the minds of many 
ministers, and were the foundation of the con- 
troversy between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler, 
which commenced near the close of the year 
1829. But before I proceed to give an account 
of this controversy, I will mention some events 
which occurred previously in the course of this 
year. In May, 1829, Dr. Porter wrote his letter 
to Dr. Beecher, which has been recently pub- 
lished, and which you have seen. The deep 



24 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

solicitude expressed in that letter, in view of the 
new theological speculations which were coming 
up in New England, was not confined to him, 
but existed in the minds of many of his breth- 
ren. In October, of the same year, he thus 
wrote to a friend : 

" From some remarks which were dropped 
when you and brother Humphrey were in my 
study, I have supposed that both you and he have 
much the same views of Dr. Taylor's speculative 
theory that I have. That he was very much dis- 
satisfied last May, I know from his strong decla- 
rations ; and his disquietude, I presume, cannot 
have been diminished by the subsequent charac- 
ter of the Christian Spectator. Since that time 
too, I have known that such men as the Prince- 
ton Professors, Dr. Spring, Dr. Porter of Catts- 
kill, Dr. Hyde of Lee, Dr. Richards of Auburn, Dr. 
Griffin, &,c, are seriously dissatisfied. Without 
time to enter into particulars, my difficulty is, that 
his note to his sermon, the Concio ad Clerum. his 
views of native depravity, of means and regene- 
ration, are virtually Arminian ; at least, they will 
be so understood as to bring up a race of young 
preachers thoroughly anti-Calvinistic. The spirit 
besides, is like the he-goat of Daniel, bold and 
pushing — impatient of inquiry, or hesitation in 
other men. Now, what is to be done ? Shall 
we sustain our Calvinism, or see it run down to 
the standard of Methodists, and laxer men '? It 
is time that a note ' of remonstrance be struck 
up somewhere. 5 " 

It has been currently reported in some quar- 
ters, that all the dissatisfaction with the New 
Haven Theology, has been produced by secret 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 25 

whisperings, and rumors set afloat by one or two 
individuals who were personal enemies to Dr. 
Taylor. No representation could be more untrue. 
Who were the men that in 1829 were seriously 
dissatisfied? Dr. Porter has mentioned the 
names of a few. Many others of similar char- 
acter might be added to the list. And were 
these men personal enemies to Dr. Taylor? Or 
did they form their opinions of his theology from 
floating rumors ? No, their dissatisfaction was 
the result of a candid and careful perusal of his 
writings, and those of his associates. 

In September of this year, a little previous to 
the date of the letter from which the above ex- 
tract is taken, (at the time of the anniversary at 
Andover,) a Conference was held at the house 
of Dr. Porter, between the New Haven Divines 
and several other ministers of distinction, with a 
view, if possible, of coming to a friendly under- 
standing, and of preventing the necessity of any 
further public controversy. It was fondly hoped 
that explanations might be given, and concessions 
made which would relieve the minds of those 
who were dissatisfied. At this meeting were 
present, Dr. Taylor and Professor Goodrich from 
New Haven, Dr. Beecher, the Andover Profes- 
sors, Dr. Church, Dr. Spring, Dr. Cogswell, 
Mr. Nettleton, Dr. Hewit, and some others whose 
names I am not now able to specify. The re- 
sult of this interview was not as happy as some 
had anticipated. The explanations of the New 
Haven brethren so far from removing the dissat- 
isfaction which existed, served rather to increase 
it. That the mind of Dr. Porter was not at all 
relieved, is evident from the letter from which 
3 



26 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

the above extract is taken, and which was written 
only a few days after the interview. It is known 
that others who were present felt as he did. 
They were fully convinced that a public contro- 
versy could not be avoided. As much as they 
dreaded the evil connected with such a contro- 
versy, it was their solemn conviction that they 
were called upon by the great head of the Church 
to take an open and decided stand against these 
speculations, and to contend earnestly for the 
faith once delivered to the saints. Dr. Woods 
at this time came to the determination to publish 
his letters to Dr. Taylor. 

Shortly after this interview, Mr. Nettleton, be- 
ing at Andover, dropped a line to Dr. Beecher, 
requesting him to invite the orthodox ministers 
of Boston to meet at his house, at a given time, 
as he wished very much to see them. At the 
time appointed he was there. He stated to his 
brethren that he was about to leave New England 
for the South, and that as reports were in circu- 
lation that he accorded in sentiment with the 
New Haven divines, and the influence of his 
name was thus made use of to give currency to 
their peculiar views ; he wished them distinctly 
to understand that he did not adopt those views 
and never had adopted them ; and that he should 
feel it to be his duty on all suitable occasions, to 
bear his testimony against them. He said that 
such were his convictions of the tendency of 
those views to corrupt revivals and produce 
spurious conversions, that if all New England 
should go over, he should prefer to stand alone, 
and he requested his brethren to make known 
his views as they had opportunity, that his name 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 27 

might not be made use of to sanction sentiments 
which he did not, and could not receive. Mr. 
Evarts, and Dr. Cornelius were at this meeting, 
and entered fully into the views of Mr. Nettleton. 
What course Dr. Beecher pursued at this time, 
and at some other times, I may perhaps have oc- 
casion to mention in a future letter. 

I have mentioned that the controversy be- 
tween Dr. Taylor and Dr. Tyler commenced the 
latter part of this year. Dr. Tyler was at this 
time pastor of a Church in Portland, (Me.) He 
was a native of Connecticut, and spent the first 
part of his pastoral life in that State, during 
which time Dr. Taylor was one of his intimate 
friends. He had been absent from the State 
about nine years, and although he had heard of 
the dissatisfaction which existed in Connecticut 
and elsewhere, in regard to Dr. Taylor's Theo- 
ogical views, he was inclined to believe that it 
was in a great measure groundless. In the sum- 
mer of 1829, he visited Connecticut and collect- 
ed all the pamphlets which had been published 
in relation to this controversy. On his return to 
Portland, he sat down to a careful examination 
of what had been published. The result was a 
full conviction that the New Haven brethren had 
adopted opinions which were erroneons and of 
dangerous tendency. The state of his mind at 
this time will be seen from the following extract 
of a letter to a friend, dated Oct. 8, 1829 : 

"Will you believe it, when your letter arrived, 
I was poring over the New Haven Divinity, as I 
have been for several days past. I should like to 
read to you some remarks which I have written 
on brother Taylor's Review of Dr. Spring. That 
Review has opened my eyes. Unless I am great- 



28 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 

ly mistaken, there is much error in that Review ; 
and the error regards principles of the first im- 
portance. When I was in Connecticut, I had 
not thought much on the controverted points, and 
I was disposed to regard them, as of but little 
practical importance. But since I returned 
home I have carefully read what has been pub- 
lished, and have come to the very conclusion 
which you have expressed in your letter that 
' there is a radical departure from our views of 
the great doctrines of the Bible.' These breth- 
ren cannot stand where they are. They are at- 
tempting to strike out a middle course between 
Calvinism and Arminianism, but they must go 
over to the one side or the other. Now what 
shall be done ? What was the result of the con- 
sultation at Andover ? Is the thing to be hushed, 
or is there to be a public discussion? I have 
been exceedingly distressed for a few weeks past 
in reflecting on this subject. What is to become 
of New England? Must we fight over the bat- 
tles of former generations? And that too with 
brethren in whom we have had the highest confi- 
dence, and with whom we have long acted in 
concert." 

About this time Dr. Tyler wrote to Dr. Tay- 
lor, and expressed with great frankness all his 
fears. Several letters passed between them ; but 
the explanations of Dr. Taylor so far from re- 
lieving his mind, increased his dissatisfaction ; 
and he finally consented at the 'earnest solicita- 
tion of several of his brethren, to publish his 
strictures on Dr. Taylor's treatise on the means 
of regeneration. Some account of this contro- 
versy, I will give you in my next letter. 

Yours very affectionately. 



LETTER IV. 



February 21, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

Dr. Tyler published his Strictures, Dec. 1829. 
He says in his Preface : 

" The writer of the following Strictures is" 
conscious of no unfriendly feelings towards the 
conductors of the Christian Spectator ; and es- 
pecially towards the individual who is generally 
known to be the writer of the Review. He has 
ever regarded him with the highest respect, and 
cherished towards him the warmest sentiments of 
personal friendship. Until recently, he has had 
the fullest confidence in the general correctness 
of his theological views. But recent publica- 
tions, and particularly the articles noticed in the 
following sheets, have produced the conviction, 
that in some things he has swerved from the faith 
of our Pilgrim fathers. Not that he has formally 
denied any one doctrine of the orthodox system, 
but, it is believed, that in his statements and ex- 
planations, he has adopted principles, which will 
lead, by inevitable consequence, to the denial of 
important doctrines, and that his speculations will 
3* 



30 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

pave the way for the gradual influx of error upon 
the American Churches, disastrous to the inter- 
ests of evangelical religion. Nothing but the 
fullest conviction of the dangerous tendency of 
these speculations, and the necessity of some 
counteracting influence, could have induced the 
writer to appear, in this manner, before the pub- 
lic. But personal considerations are to be waved, 
when the interests of truth and piety are con- 
cerned." 

In prosecuting his object, he in the first place, 
attempts to correct some errors in regard to the 
meaning and explanation of terms. He objects 
to the meaning which Dr. Taylor attaches to the 
term regeneration. He uses it to denote " that 
act of the will or heart which consists in prefer- 
ence of God to every other object; making it of 
course, an act of the sinner, and not exclusively 
the work of God. He objects also to the dis- 
tinction which Dr. Taylor makes between the 
popular and theological use of the term regenera- 
tion. In the popular sense, Dr. Taylor supposes 
it to denote a process, or series of acts and states 
of mind, and to include all those acts which 
constitute, using the means of regeneration. 
He objects also to the sense in which Dr. Tay- 
lor uses the term selfishness. According to him, 
selfishness consists not in a supreme regard to 
our own happiness, but in the love of the world, 
or in prefering the world to God, as our portion 
or chief good. He makes a distinction between 
selfishness and self-love, and supposes that the 
former may be suspended in the unrenewed 
heart, and that the sinner influenced by the lat- 
ter, may use the means of regeneration with mo- 



OF XEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 31 

lives which are neither sinful nor holy. An 
ultimate regard to our own happiness, according 
to him, is not selfishness, but self-love, a principle 
by which all moral beings of whatever character, 
are actuated. He says, indeed, w Of al 1 specific 
voluntary action, the happiness of the agent, in 
some form, is the ultimate end ;" thus confound- 
ing as Dr. Tyler shows, all distinction between 
holiness, and sin, making both proceed from the 
same principle of action. 

In regard to the suspension of the selfish prin- 
ciple, Dr. Tyler asks, " But how is the selfish 
principle suspended ? Is it suspended by the 
interposition of God, or by an act of the sinner ? 
Not by the interposition of God, for, if I under- 
stand the Reviewer, lie supposes that those men- 
tal acts which constitute using the means of re- 
generation, precede the act of divine interposi- 
tion. Besides, if God by an act of his grace, 
suspends the selfish principle, what is this but 
regeneration ! Does the sinner while under the 
control of supreme selfishness, and consequently 
from a selfish motive resolve not to be selhsh. 
This would seem to represent selfishness as divid- 
ed against itself, ' an absurdity sufficiently palpa- 
ble to silence even Jewish cavilling.' Is the 
selfish principle suspended without any act of the 
mind ? What is the cause of this wonderful 
phenomenon ? Or has it no cause ? Is it an 
accident which may, or may not happen, and 
which, nevertheless must happen in regard to 
every one of the human race before he can be 
regenerated !" 

He elsewhere shows that there is not, and 



32 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

cannot be, any such thing as the suspension of 
the selfish principle in the unrenewed heart. 

"It is admitted/' he says, " that there is no 
holiness in man antecedent to regeneration. 
Consequently, there is no love to God, and no 
true benevolence. By what principle then, is the 
sinner actuated? By self-love, it is said. But is 
it possible that the sinner while destitute of love 
to God, and of every spark of genuine benevo- 
lence, should love himself at all and not love 
himself supremely 1 What other object does he 
regard more than self? Not God, nor the hap- 
piness of the universe. What other object does 
he regard at all ? Nothing, except as it tends to 
promote his ultimate end, viz. his own happiness. 
This is his sole object of pursuit. This fills all 
his eye, and engrosses all his thoughts and all his 
purposes. To this he is supremely devoted. 
Consequently he is supremely selfish. It is im- 
possible to conceive of a being more so. Every 
moral being destitute of benevolence, and actu- 
ated by self-love, is necessarily a selfish being. 
According to this supposition, self-love is the 
governing principle of his mind, and if this does 
not constitute selfishness, it is impossible to con- 
ceive of any thing which can constitute it. To 
suppose therefore, selfishness to be suspended in 
the natural heart, and self-love to exist and oper- 
ate, is to suppose an absolute impossibility. If 
pne is suspended, the other must be also." 

After exhibiting fully Dr. Taylor's theory, Dr. 
Tyler proposes seven queries, which are intended 
to present in a single view its legitimate conse- 
quences. His first query is, " Whether accord- 
ing to Dr. Taylor's representations, regeneration 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 33 

is not a gradual and progressive work?" The 
second, " Whether the theory in question does 
not involve the inconsistency of supposing that 
the heart is changed antecedent to regeneration V* 
The third, " What becomes of the sinner's con- 
viction of sin, while using the means of regene- 
ration ?" The fourth, " Whether the theory in 
question, does not dispense with the necessity of 
divine influence in regeneration?" The fifth, 
" Whether Dr. Taylor does not represent the 
sinner as laboring under a natural inability to do 
his duty?" The sixth, " Whether he does not, 
in effect, deny the doctrine of sovereign and dis- 
tinguishing grace?" The seventh, "Whether 
this theory, if drawn out in detail, and inculcated 
by the teachers of religion, has not a direct ten- 
dency to stifle conviction of sin, and produce 
spurious conversions?" 

The strictures were reviewed in the Christian 
Spectator, by Dr. Taylor. Dr. Tyler published 
a vindication of the strictures. There was a 
very brief notice of the vindication in the Spec- 
tator, with an intimation that it might be fol- 
lowed by a more extended review. But that 
review has never appeared. 

To give you an idea of the impression made 
upon some minds by this discussion, I quote the 
following extract from a letter of Dr. Porter, 
dated Charleston (S. C.) May 1, 1830. 

" A letter from brother Stuart, soon after I 
left you, had this passage. i Dr. Tyler has pub- 
lished his pamphlet which has made an end of 
the matter as to brother Taylor's regeneration 
by self-love — a full end. There is no redemp- 
tion. All the focr is blown away, and we have at 



34 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

last, a clear and sheer regeneration of the natural 
man by himself, stimulated by self-love, made 
out to be the scheme of brother Taylor. There 
is no getting aside of it.' I quote this because 
it accords so perfectly with my own views, and 
because brother Stuart has been claimed by Dr. 
Taylor, as on his side. 

" I take it for granted that Professor Stuart can 
have no objections that the above extract be seen, 
because it perfectly accords with what he has ex- 
pressed in conversation to many individuals, and 
because I presume he is willing that his views 
should be known; especially since the influence 
of his name has been so extensively employed to 
give sanction to sentiments, which he not only 
does not believe, but rejects with abhorrence/' 

Jn the same letter from which the above is 
extracted, Dr. Porter thus speaks of the reply to 
Dr. Tyler's strictures, " On returning to this 
city, I find in the Spectator for March, Dr. Tay- 
lor's review of Dr. Tyler's strictures, and though 
I can hardly say I am disappointed, I am troubled 
in spirit at the character of this review. I am 
sorry to see a temper in some respects so excep- 
tionable Indeed, I am completely nonplussed to 
see what Dr. Taylor would be at. He began 
writing avowedly to correct what he thought com- 
mon errors of our theologians : and next he sup- 
ports his own views by quoting these theologians 
as concurring in sentiment with himself. If Dr. 
Taylor is radically wrong, it is a great evil. If 
he is right, and yet uses language, so as to lead 
others wrong in their own system, or wrong in 
their views of his, it is still a great evil. What 
can be done with a man who will turn upon you 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 35 

at every corner, with ' you mistake my mean- 
ing?' I answer, let him be candidly, kindly, 
and solemnly pressed farther. His views of self- 
love cannot stand inquiry. His true benevolence 
- — love to God — in its most elementary form, is 
what? Regard to one's own happiness. Fuller 
in his ' Gospel its own witness, 5 shows this to be 
an infidel sentiment; and Smalley shows that 
satan is innocent, if an ultimate regard to self, is 
no sin." 

In his published letters on Revivals of Reli- 
gion, Dr. Porter has some excellent remarks on 
this subject. I have room only for a short 
extract. After quoting two or three passages 
from Dr. Taylor's Treatise on the means of re- 
generation he says, " This language certainly is 
not so precise as one could wish, but it seems un* 
avoidable to understand it as meaning, that re- 
gard to his own happiness is the primary and 
proper spring of action in every man ; that his 
moral character is determined solely by the object 
of his choice, or his estimate of his own inter- 
ests as correct or incorrect; that if he chooses 
the world as his chief good, from self-love, he is 
an unholy man ; but if he chooses God from 
self-love, he is a regenerate man. And by that 
voluntary act, in which he first prefers God to the 
world, from regard to his own interest, he be- 
comes regenerate. Any man may use language 
so as not to express his own meaning. But de- 
liberately to admit that self-love must be the 
primary ground of moral affection, is to super- 
cede all intelligent discussion, about regeneration, 
or any of the kindred doctrines of grace. This 
one principle sweeps the whole away. There 



36 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY, 

remains no radical distinction of character be- 
tween the saint and the sinner. The most de- 
praved individual on earth, or even among apos- 
tate spirits, doubtless is the centre of his affec- 
tions. And though he ma) T have perverted views 
of his own interest, he means notwithstanding 
to act, and does act, from a primary regard to 
himself. And if this is the highest principle of 
action to a holy being, then an angel and a devil 
stand on the same ground as to moral character; 
(in other words) there is no distinction between 
holiness and sin. Besides, this theory would 
split the moral system into as many jarring parts 
with as many centres of 'primary' affections as 
it contains individuals. It would set every moral 
agent at variance with every other moral agent, 
and with God himself. Whereas the simple pre- 
cept, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart' — sets up another standard in every 
bosom. It establishes a common centre of mor- 
al affection to the universe of moral agents, and 
binds the hearts of all to each other, and to the 
throne of Jehovah." 

I have made free use of the thoughts of Dr. 
Porter, because he was extensively known and 
highly esteemed at the South ; and because, in 
his theological views, he may be regarded as a 
fair representative of a large portion of the min- 
isters of New England. I propose in my next 
letter, to give you some account of the contro- 
versy between Dr. Woods and Dr. Taylor. 

Yours very affectionately. 



LETTER V. 

February, 23, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

Dr. Woods published his letters to Dr. Taylor 
in 1830. These letters were occasioned by the 
note to Dr. Taylor's Concio ad Clerum, in which 
he attempts to account for the existence of sin, 
by supposing that its prevention in a moral sys- 
tem is impossible to God. 

In his first letter, he makes some remarks on 
the proper manner of conducting theological 
discussion, the duty and responsibility of Theo- 
logical Professors, the danger of giving too much 
prominence to philosophical speculations in mat- 
ters of religion, and the importance of conform- 
ing exactly to the word of God. In the second 
letter he attempts to ascertain the precise mean- 
ing of Dr. Taylor's language. He understands 
him to maintain these two positions, " First: 
That sin is not the necessary means of the great- 
est good, and as such, so far as it exists, is not on 
the whole, preferable to holiness in its stead. 
Second, That in amoral system, God could not 
prevent all sin, nor the present degree of it" In 
4 



38 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

the third letter, he considers the question wheth- 
er there is any thing in the nature of moral 
agency which renders it impossible for God to 
prevent sin, and shows that Dr. Taylor's theory 
implies the independence of moral agents. On 
this point he says : 

" You hold that such is the nature of moral 
agency, that it was utterly impossible for God to 
prevent its perversion ; that if moral beings ex- 
isted, it was unavoidable that some of them should 
sin ; and that Omnipotence itself could not exert 
an influence upon them sufficient to prevent this. 
Let God create moral beings any way he pleases ; 
let him place them in the most favorable circum- 
stances, exert upon them the highest possible in- 
fluence, and extend over them the most constant 
and most powerful protection ; let him watch 
them with his Omniscient eye, and shield them 
with his Omnipotent arm ; still, according to your 
theory, they will, at least some of them, fall into 
sin. You think there is in moral agency itself, a 
power so resistless, that it is impossible for God 
himself, however strong may be his desire, to 
prevent the existence, or even the present degree 
of sin." 

In the fourth letter, he shows that God has a 
perfect control over the minds of all rational 
creatures, without in the least degree impairing 
their moral freedom. He also refutes the asser- 
tion of Dr. Taylor, that the common theory 
limits the goodness of God. In the fifth letter, 
he continues his examination of Dr. Taylor's 
reasoning from the nature of moral agency, and 
shows that to prevent the perversion of moral 
agency, is not necessarily to destroy it. In this 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 39 

letter he adduces direct proof that God is able 
to convert more sinners than are converted. 1. 
From his Omnipotence. 2. From what he has 
done. 3. From the requisition of prayer. 4. 
From the representation of scripture, that God 
converts men according to his will or pleasure. 

In the sixth letter, he considers the question 
whether God could have secured the holiness of 
any moral being without the influence of moral 
evil. He also attempts to ascertain the meaning 
of the position that sin is the necessary means of 
the greatest good, and in what sense it is true. 
Not that sin is good in its own nature and ten- 
dency, but that it is so overruled and counteract- 
ed as to be made to subserve a benevolent end. 
In the seventh letter, he answers the objection of 
Dr. Taylor, that if sin is, on the whole, for the 
best, it is our duty to sin, and God cannot be 
sincere in forbidding it. He repels the insinua- 
tion that the orthodox consider sin as " excellent 
in its nature and relations." On this point he 
says : 

" Now Dear Brother, who holds the opinion 
which you here oppose and contrast with your 
own? Who among all the ministers and friends 
of Christ, especially among the orthodox minis- 
ters and christians in this country, ever enter- 
tained an opinion so impious and shocking as 
that God considered sin as ' excellent in its nature 
and relations,' or purposed it as such. Such a 
sentiment, I am bold to say, can be found in no 
orthodox writer, and must be instantly repelled 
by every pious heart. Why then, I ask, do you 
use language which certainly implies, that this 
opinion is held by those from whom you differ ? 



40 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

If you mean to convey this impression, then I 
am constrained to say, that no calumniator of 
the orthodox ever charged them more injuri- 
ously." 

In the eighth and last letter, he considers the 
practical influence of Dr. Taylor's theory, as it 
affects our views of the power of God — the bless- 
edness of God — the system of his works — the 
extent of his dominion — the happiness of the 
good — submission — prayer — and dependence on 
divine grace. He then closes with a friendly ex- 
postulation with Dr. Taylor, in regard to his spec- 
ulations generally. I should be glad to quote 
largely from this letter, but I have room only for 
a few brief extracts. 

He says, " The unqualified language which 
you sometimes employ respecting the natural 
state, the free will and powers of man, the nature 
and necessity of divine influence, the manner of 
regeneration, and other points alluded to, is not I 
apprehend, in accordance either with the letter or 
the spirit of Revelation, and will have an unpro- 
pitious influence upon the characters of men, 
upon revivals of religion, and upon the interests 
of the church. But on these subjects I would 
not enlarge at present, as I have intended to 
give my views respecting them more fully in 
another way. But, my brother, you cannot sure- 
ly think it strange, that serious disquietude and 
alarm should exist among us, in consequence of 
what you have published in relation to these sub- 
jects. For you well know that Calvinists, though 
not afraid of free discussion, are sincerely and 
firmly attached to their articles of faith, and are 
not apt to be carried about with the changing 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 41 

opinions of others. Whether right or wrong, 
we have been accustomed to consider the con- 
troversy which early arose in the Church between 
the Orthodox and Pelagians, and which after the 
Reformation, was continued between the Lu- 
therans and Calvinists on one side, and the Ar- 
minians or Remonstrants on the other, as of rad- 
ical importance. 

" Now how would you expect us to feel, and 
with our convictions, how ought we to feel, when 
a brother who has professed to be decidedly or- 
thodox, and has had our entire confidence, and is 
placed at the head of one of our theological 
schools, makes an attack upon several of the arti- 
cles of our faith, and employs language on the sub- 
ject of moral agency, free will, depravity, divine 
influence, &c, which is so like the language of 
Arminians and Pelagians, that it would require 
some labor to discover the difference ? And how 
would it be natural for us to feel, when such a 
brother adopts, on several controverted subjects, 
the language and the opinions which have been 
adopted by the Unitarians ; and when we find 
that Unitarians themselves understand him as ar- 
guing with them, and making such argument a 
subject of exultation ? Would it not betray an 
indifference and remissness in us, which you 
would think unaccountable, if such things ex- 
cited no solicitude in us respecting the cause 
which ought ever to be dearest to our hearts ?" 

" I have not adverted to this noticeable agree- 
ment in phraseology, and in reasoning between 
you and those I have mentioned, for the purpose 
of stigmatizing your theory, or as proof that it 
is erroneous." 
4* 



42 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

" But when we find you, on several interesting 
points, siding with these sects against the ortho- 
dox, siding too with Dr. John Taylor against 
Edwards, on some of the main questions at issue 
between them, and when, in addition to this, we 
find you on some points coinciding so nearly 
with the views of the French Philosophers, and 
shall I say, on other points, throwing out the very 
objections which we have so often heard from 
cavillers against orthodoxy, it would certainly 
be strange, if none of our sensibilities were 
touched, and no concern or fear excited within 
us in regard to the tendency of your specula- 
tions. I acknowledge that on this subject, we 
may be mistaken, and that our fear may be 
groundless. And we will be anxiously looking 
for evidence to satisfy us that it is so. To such 
evidence, we will open every avenue to our un- 
derstandings and our hearts. 

(( But I feel myself constrained to say, that the 
theory which you adopt, in contradistinction to 
the common theory, appears to me, generally, so 
far as I understand it, to be unscriptural, and of 
dangerous tendency. And the more I examine 
it, the farther I am from being satisfied with it. 
And this is the case with the orthodox communi- 
ty to an extent, as I have reason to think, far 
beyond your apprehension. Compared with the 
whole body of Congregational and Presbyterian 
ministers, there are very few who embrace your 
opinions ; and though my knowledge may be de- 
fective, yet among all the Professors of our The- 
ological Seminaries and Presidents of our Col- 
leges, I do not know of one, whose views coin- 
cide with yours. 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 43 

" But although such has been the case with me 
and my brethren in the same office generally, we 
have been slow, perhaps too slow, to make a pub- 
lic declaration of our dissent. So far have we 
been from acting the part of assailants, that we 
have been very reluctant to come even to the 
work of self-defence" " In the mean time, you 
and your associates have been intent upon your 
object, and by preaching and conversation, and 
pamphlets, especially by a popular periodical, 
have been zealously laboring to propagate your 
tenets. At length, in conformity with the wishes 
of many, far and near, I have been induced to 
unite with those respected ministers who have 
preceded me, not, be it remembered, in making 
an attack on you, as has been very incautiously 
said, but in repelling your attack upon us and 
our brethren, and in defending our common and 
long established faith against what we conceive 
to be innovation and error. 

" I most heartily regret the introduction of a 
controversy, which may turn off the minds of 
many from the great interests of religion, fill our 
Churches with strife, and hinder the spread of 
the Gospel. But for the evils of such a contro- 
versy, who is responsible?" " If after all the ef- 
forts I have made, I have misapprehended the 
true sense of the passages in your sermon, to 
which I have attended, I shall hope for such 
explanations from you, as will effectually correct 
my mistake. And you will keep in mind, that 
the mistake, if there is one, exists among your 
readers extensively. Do you not owe it then to 
the public, to give a clear, unambiguous, and 
full exhibition of the peculiarities of your system, 



44 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

so that there may no longer be any complaint of 
obscurity, or any suspicion of concealment." 

"If it be true that your system agrees with 
that of Edwards and D wight and New England 
ministers generally, the public should be satis- 
fied of this. Or if a new system is to be intro- 
duced, and a new sect formed, with a new name, 
and new measures to extend itself, and a new 
and separate interest ; then the public ought to 
have the means of understanding exactly what 
the new system is, and what is to be the new sect. 
The difficulty lies not at all between you and me, 
personally, but between you, and the Christian 
community. And if you will in any way satisfy 
them that you do not entertain the views which 
have been imputed to you; if you will satisfy 
them, that you agree in your doctrinal belief, as 
you profess to do, with Edwards and Dwight ; I 
and others shall have nothing more to do, but to 
signify our joy, that our mistake has been cor- 
rected, and our entire confidence in you restor- 
ed ■ and so the whole matter may come at once 
to a happy termination." 

These letters were read with deep interest by 
the ministers of New England ; and were exten- 
sively regarded as a complete refutation of the 
theory of Dr. Taylor. They were also admired 
for the candor and Christian spirit by which they 
were signally characterised. Such, however, was 
not the judgment passed upon them by the New 
Haven divines. In their review of them in the 
Christian Spectator, they speak of them as being 
filled with evasions and misrepresentations, and 
as being pervaded by a " personal incivility," 
which is " without a parallel in our Churches for 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 45 

the last thirty years." It may be interesting to 
know the opinion of an impartial critic on the 
other side of the Atlantic. Dr. John Pye Smith, 
in the London Eclectic Review, after speaking 
in high commendation of the reasoning of Dr. 
Woods, in these letters, adds, " The soundness 
of Dr. Woods' argument, so far as it is opposed 
to the theory of Dr. Taylor, is not the only merit 
which these letters possess. They afford an ex- 
cellent example of the close and pressing pursuit 
of an antagonist, without (as we can perceive) 
the slightest improper feeling. There is no 
vaunting, no contempt ; there are no anathemas, 
and no imputations ; but many serious, and sea- 
sonable cautions, the fruit of experience and 
sound piety, addressed to one who, as it seems, 
although a teacher, has much to learn of that 
wisdom which should belong to men in responsi- 
ble stations." 

In the same number of the Christian Specta- 
tor, which contained the review of Dr. Woods' 
letters, there was a review of Bellamy's Treatise 
on the Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin, 
in which the writer attempts to show, that Dr. 
Bellamy maintained the theory of Dr. Taylor ; 
whereas it was the express object of that treatise 
to overthrow this very theory. This misrepre- 
sentation or perversion of the sentiments of the 
venerable dead, is not among the least grounds 
of complaint against the New Haven divines. 
Yours affectionately. 



LETTER VI. 

February 23, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

In the early part of the year 1832, Dr, Hawes, 

of Hartford, addressed a letter to Dr. Taylor, 
informing him that there were suspicions in the 
public mind, in regard to his soundness in the 
faith, and requesting him to " make a frank and 
full statement of his religious views." To this 
letter Dr. Taylor replied, and the two letters 
were published in the Connecticut Observer, of 
February 20th, 1832. It was supposed by the 
public, that the letter of Dr. Taylor, as it 
appeared in print, contained the " frank and 
full statement," which he had made to Dr. 
Hawes, at his particular request ; but it was after- 
wards ascertained that some part of the original 
letter was suppressed. 

When Dr. Hawes was inquired of in regard 
to this fact, he acknowledged that the letter con- 
tained some things which he deemed it not pru- 
dent to publish, and that he wrote to Dr. Taylor, 
and obtained permission to strike out the objec- 
tionable parts. Thus it appeared, that the great 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 47 

object of this correspondence was not so much 
to obtain from Dr. Taylor a "frank and full 
statement of his religious views," as to obtain 
such a statement as would remove from the pub- 
lic mind the suspicions which had been created 
by his previous publications. The plan, how- 
ever, did not succeed. The letter, as it was 
published, was far from giving satisfaction. It 
would probably have been less satisfactory if it had 
been published entire : for I have understood by 
an individual who saw the manuscript, that those 
parts which were suppressed, contained the most 
" frank and full statement 5 ' of Dr. Taylor's 
peculiar views. 

This letter contained a creed of eleven arti- 
cles, expressed for the most part, in unexcep- 
tionable language. But to this were subjoined 
certain explanations, which seemed to many, 
directly to contradict the articles of the creed ; 
or at least, to make it evident, that while Dr. 
Taylor employed orthodox language, he must 
affix to that language a meaning entirely different 
from that in which it is commonly received. 

Some remarks on this letter were published by 
Dr. Tyler, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, a period- 
ical published in Boston. I will insert a few 
extracts from these remarks. He says : 

" I have never supposed that Dr. Taylor inten- 
ded to deny any of the leading doctrines of the 
Calvinistic system. I have always supposed that 
he would be willing to suscribe just such a creed 
as that which he has given us in his letter. Is it 
asked then, what are the grounds of my fears 1 
I will frankly state them. Any one, at all ac- 
quainted with ecclesiastical history must have 



48 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

observed, that the great errors which have infest- 
ed the church, have usually crept in unawares. 
They have originated in speculations, and ' phi- 
losophical theories,' which, at first, were not 
intended to call in question the commonly re- 
ceived doctrines, but to explain them, and relieve 
them of difficulties. The process has been a 
gradual undermining process, and such, it has 
appeared to me, is the tendency of Dr. Taylor's 
speculations. That his theories do involve prin- 
ciples subversive of some of the most prominent 
and important doctrines of his creed, I shall 
endeavor to show in the following remarks : 

" I. The doctrine of Decrees. 

"Dr. Taylor says, ' I believe that the eternal 
purposes of God extend to all actual events, sin 
not excepted : or that God foreordained whatso- 
ever comes to pass, and so executes these purpo- 
ses as to leave the free and moral agency of man 
unimpaired.' 

" Yet in the same letter Dr. Taylor says : 

" i I do not believe that sin can be proved to 
be the necessary means of the greatest good, 
and that as such God prefers it on the whole, to 
holiness in its stead ; or that a God of sincerity 
and truth punishes his creatures for doing that 
which, on the whole, he prefers they should do. 
But I do believe that it may be true, that God, 
all things considered, prefers holiness to sin in 
all instances in which the latter takes place.' 

" How are these two parts of his creed to be 
reconciled? If it ' be true that God all things 
considered, prefers holiness to sin in all instances 
in which the latter takes place,' it cannot be 
true that God has purposed or foreordained what- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 49 

soever comes to pass; for, according to this rep- 
resentation, it was from eternity God's will, or 
choice, all things considered, that sin should not 
exist in a single instance. Consequently, it could 
not, in any sense, be his purpose, or his choice, 
that it should exist. To say that God prefers, 
all things considered, that sin should not exist, 
and at the same time to say that he has purposed 
or foreordained that it shall exist, is a palpable 
contradiction. It is the same as to say, that God 
chooses and does not choose the same thing, at 
the same time." " Again : It is a part of Dr. 
Taylor's theory, that ' God could not prevent all 
sin, or the present degree of sin in a moral sys- 
tem.' ' He would have prevented all sin in his 
moral universe, but could not.' Yet he foreor- 
dained whatsoever comes to pass ; that is, he 
foreordained that which he would have prevented 
if he could ! ! What can be a plainer contra- 
diction ? 

" II. The doctrine of Original Sin. 

" Dr. Taylor says, ' I believe that all man- 
kind, in consequence of the fall of Adam, are 
born destitute of holiness, and are by nature 
totally depraved ; in other words, that all men 
from the commencement of moral agency, do, 
without the interposition of divine grace, sin, 
and only sin, in all their moral conduct. I also 
believe, that such is the nature of the human 
mind, that it becomes the occasion of universal 
sin in all the appropriate circumstances of their 
existence, and that therefore they may properly 
be said to be sinners by nature.' 

"To these sentiments understood according to 
their plain and obvious import, I can most cheer- 
5 



50 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

fully subscribe. But how are these declarations 
to be understood, when taken in connection with 
other things which Dr. Taylor has said on this 
subject. 1 have always supposed that when it is 
said, that in consequence of the fall of Adam all 
have become sinners, the language is intended 
to convey the idea that there is a real connection 
between the sin of Adam and that of his poster- 
ity; and that when it is said, all are by nature 
sinners, the meaning is, that there is something 
in our nature which is truly the cause or reason 
why all men become sinners : consequently, 
that human nature is not what it would have 
been, if sin had not existed, but has undergone 
some change in consequence of the original 
apostacy." " Now the question is, is the nature 
of man different from what it would have been r 
if sin had never entered the world ? Is there any 
thing in human nature which is hereditary and 
the consequence of the original apostacy ? Or is 
every thing pertaining to the nature of man, the 
immediate production of creative power ? And 
do mankind come into the world now, with the 
same nature as that with which Adam was crea- 
ated, and which the child Jesus possessed ? If 
so, then mankind are not by nature sinners. 
Their nature is in no sense the cause or reason 
of their sinning ; for Adam was not by nature a 
sinner ; nor was the child Jesus. They were by 
nature holy. Nor is it possible to perceive ac^ 
cording to this view of the subject, that there is 
any real connection between the sin of Adam and 
the sin of his posterity. Now, unless I have en- 
tirely mistaken the import of Dr. Taylor's spec- 
ulations, he does maintain that the moral nature 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 51 

of all accountable beings is alike, and is the 
very nature which God has given." In support 
of this declaration, he quotes several passages 
from the Christian Spectator, and concludes this 
part of the subject, by saying: " To what purpose 
then are we told that, in consequence of Adam's 
fall all mankind have become sinners — and that 
they are sinners by nature, when the whole is 
virtually denied? 

"III. The Doctrine of Regeneration. 

" Dr.- Taylor has expressed his belief in rela- 
tion to this doctrine in the fifth, sixth, seventh, 
eighth, and ninth articles of his creed." " All 
this is very good ; but this is not all which he has 
written on this subject. He has adopted theo- 
ries which, in the judgment of many, at least, 
tend to sap the foundation of this fundamental 
doctrine of the Christian faith. Although he 
explictly admits the influence of the Holy Spirit 
in regeneration, yet in view of many things 
which he has written, it is difficult to see what 
necessity there can be for this divine influence." 
" This necessity results solely from the perverse- 
ness and obstinacy of the sinner's heart. But, 
according to Dr. Taylor's theory, the perverse- 
ness and obstinacy of his heart are removed 
antecedent to regeneration. The selfish prin- 
ciple is suspended. He ceases to sin, and ceases 
to resist. Every thing, indeed, which can be 
rationally supposed to render the agency of the 
Holy Spirit necessary in renewing the heart, is 
removed." He shows also from Dr. Taylor's 
statements, that according to his theory, " every 
moral being chooses what he judges will be most 
for his happiness. The reason, therefore, that 



52 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

the sinner prefers the world to God is, that he 
has mistaken the true way of securing his high- 
est happiness. What then is necessary to effect 
his conversion ? Nothing but light to correct his 
mistake. So soon as he shall be convinced that 
more happiness is to be derived from God than 
from the world, self-love will prompt him to change 
the object of his preference ; where then is the 
necessity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to 
renew the heart ? 

" IV. The Doctrine of Election. 

" Dr. Taylor says, ' I believe that all who are 
renewed by the Holy Spirit, are elected or cho- 
sen of God from eternity that they should be 
holy, not according to foreseen faith or good 
works, but according to the good pleasure of his 
will.' 

" This is a full and satisfactory statement of 
the doctrine of election. But how is this to be 
reconciled with other statements of his? If it 
be true that God, ( all things considered, prefers 
holiness to sin in all instances in which the latter 
takes place,' then it must be his choice, all things 
considered, that all men should become holy and 
be saved, and his infinite benevolence will prompt 
him to do all in his power to bring all men to re- 
pentance ? What then becomes of the doctrine of 
election ? Who maketh thee to differ? Not 
God, truly; for if he prefers, all things consid- 
ered, holiness to sin, in every instance, he will of 
course do all in his power to make every individ- 
ual holy. It cannot be true that he hath mercy 
on whom he will have mercy, for he would have 
mercy on all, if he could. ^ The reason that a 
part only of the human race, and not all, are 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 53 

saved, is not because God did not choose, all 
things considered, that all should be saved ; but 
because he was unable to save all. He would 
have prevented all sin in his moral universe, but 
could not. What, then, I ask again, becomes of 
the doctrine of election? 55 Two or three passa- 
ges are quoted from the Christian Spectator, 
which evidently teach the Arminian view of the 
doctrine of election, particularly the following: 

" The means of reclaiming grace, which meet 
him in the word and Spirit of God, are those by 
which the Father draws, induces just such 
sinners as himself voluntarily to submit to Christ ; 
,-and these means all favor the act of his immediate 
submission. To this influence he can yield, and 
thus be drawn of the Father. This influence he 
can resist, and thus harden his heart against God. 
Election involves nothing more, as it respects 
his individual case, except one fact : the certainty 
to the divine mind, whether the sinner will yield 
to the means of grace and voluntarily turn to 
God, or whether he will continue to harden his 
heart till the means of grace are withdrawn," 
See Christian Spectator for Dec. 1831, p. 737. 

Dr. Tyler closes with the following remark : 
M The reader will perceive that each of the top- 
ics brought into view in the preceding remarks, 
might be made the subject of extended discus- 
sion ; but my object has been to present a brief 
general view of what I conceive to be the ten- 
dency of Dr. Taylor's speculations. I have felt 
it the more important to do this on account of 
the attempts which have been made to convince 
the public that the points on which Dr. Taylor 
diners from his brethren are of trifling conse- 
5* 



54 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 

quence, as they relate chiefly not to the doctrines, 
but to the philosophy of religion. But if his 
philosophical theories, as I have attempted to 
show, do tend to sap the foundation of some of 
the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, they are 
not to be regarded as harmless ; nor ought the 
Christian community to slumber, while such 
strenuous efforts are making to give them cur- 
rency in the world." 

I have made the foregoing extracts for the pur- 
pose of giving you a general view of the state of the 
controversy at this period, and of the ground of dis- 
satisfaction which extensively prevailed in regard 
to Dr. Taylor's speculations. The controversy 
was carried on between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Ty- 
ler for some time, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims. 
In the mean time, the remarks of Dr. Tyler,, 
from which the foregoing extracts are taken, 
were reviewed in the Christian Spectator, for 
September, 1832. Some account of this review 
I will give you in my next letter. 

Yours affectionately. 



LETTER VII. 



March 2, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

I promised to give you some account of the 
Review of Dr. Tyler's remarks, which was writ- 
ten by Dr. Taylor, and which- appeared in the 
Christian Spectator for September, 1832. Dr. 
Porter, in a letter dated Charleston, S. C, De- 
cember 8, 1832, speaking of that Review, says, 
" That Review surprised and pained me exceed- 
ingly. Indeed, it is the most exceptionable per- 
formance of the kind that I have read. The 
temper of it is unmanly and unchristian. It 
compares with some of the sectarian pamphlets 
on baptism, be, which I read in my boyhood, 
though I think it beats them all." That you 
may be able to judge of the justness of these 
remarks, I will give you a few extracts. What 
the reviewer proposes is, to examine the theories 
of Dr. Tyler, in relation to the depravity of 
man, and the divine permission of sin. In regard 
to the first theory, he says : 

" This theory is, that the nature of man since 
the apostacy differs as really from his nature be- 



56 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

fore that event as the nature of a lion which leads 
him to feed on flesh, differs from that of the ox, 
which leads him to feed on grass. Accordingly, 
he asks ' what inconsistency is there in suppos- 
ing that there is, in man a native propensity to 
evil, propagated from parent to child, like other 
natural propensities V On this theory, then, we 
would offer the following remarks : It exhibits 
God as the responsible author of sin. We sup^. 
pose Dr. Tyler to believe, as others who have 
advanced the same theory maintain, that this 
propensity to sin is itself sinful ; or, as another 
writer affirms, is the essence of all sin." " God, 
therefore, according to this theory, is the respon- 
sible author of that in man, in which the essence 
of all sin consists ; and actually damns the soul^ 
for being what he makes it, or causes it to be by 
physical law r s. If Dr. Tyler should say that 
the propensity to sin, of which he speaks, 
is innocent, still man, as he comes into being, is 
doomed to sin by a natural and fatal necessity." 
u With such a propensity, man has not a natural 
ability to avoid sin. This is alike true, whether 
this propensity be supposed to be sinful or inno-- 
cent." " Man, therefore, by the laws of propa- 
gation, is naturally unable to avoid sin, and to 
become holy, and therefore is not a moral agent." 
" According to Dr. Tyler's theory, sin must be 
good in itself, and the only real good to man, as 
a moral being." " According to Dr. Tyler's 
philosophy, man in the act of becoming holy, 
must be supremely seljisli" " Dr. Tyler's theory 
is inconsistent with undeniable facts. Adam 
and satan, with his companions, all sinned. 
Whence came their first propensity to sin ? 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY, 57 

Whatever expedient Dr. Tyler may devise to 
account for the first propensity to sin in these 
creatures of God, one thing is certain, viz., that 
being without father and without mother, they 
did not become the subjects of such a propen- 
sity by propagation." "According to Dr. Ty- 
ler's theory, the divine lawgiver seems to have 
entirely mistaken, in regard to man, the proper 
object of a legal prohibition and penalty. The 
radical evil lies in the constitutional propensities 
which God has given to men. The divine law r , 
therefore, it would seem, should forbid men to 
have, and punish them for having those constitu- 
tional propensities which they derived exclusively 
from their Creator." " The terms of salvation, 
and the exhibition of motives to comply with them, 
are, according to the same theory, a mockery." 
" The true and only reason, according to this 
scheme, why sinners are lost, is, not that they do 
not act, but that God does not." " According 
to Dr. Tyler's theory, what is commonly called 
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, is unnecessary." 
" To sin, according to Dr. Tyler, must be the 
chief end of man." " Man's chief end is not to 
glorify God and enjoy him forever, and the West- 
minster Catechism is flatly contradicted." 

In regard to Dr. Tyler's theory of the divine 
permission of sin, he says, " How is it that those 
are reproved who shut up the kingdom of heaven, 
and neither entered themselves, nor suffered oth- 
ers to enter, when according to Dr. Tyler, it 
would prove a calamity on the whole, had one 
more sinner reached heaven than has reached it. 
How is it that God says in Isaiah, v. 3., that he 

HAS DONE ALL THAT CAN BE DONE tO bring sin- 



58 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

ners to repentance, when he could do more, 
if he would, and, would do more, did he 
he not, on the whole, prefer their continued sin, 
to their repentance ? ' My child,' says a father, 
' never steal, never lie ; I have no pleasure at all 
that you should, compared with being honest and 
true ; but then, my child,' he proceeds, ' I greatly 
prefer, on the whole, that you should steal and 
lie, at least in nine cases out of ten ; for stealing 
and lying in these instances, will be the best 
things on the whole which you can do ; and al- 
though I shall do every thing that can be done to 
secure your obedience to my law, yet I could do 
much more if I would ; and I would do it, if I 
did not, on the whole, prefer your stealing and 
lying to honesty and truth. I have therefore de- 
termined to do that, and that only, which will 
secure your almost incessant stealing and lying, 
because on the whole, these are the best things 
you can do.' Such is God, according to this the- 
ory." " According to the theory of Dr. Tyler, 
God prefers sin to holiness, and decrees its exist- 
ence, that thereby he may show his mercy, in the 
salvation of apart only of the human race, and 
this, when he could have secured the perfect 
holiness and happiness of all, and of his entire 
moral universe, throughout eternity; The case 
is this. A father throws his own children, or 
permits them to fall from a fearful precipice, 
when he not only could have prevented them, 
but would, had he not determined sorely to wound 
them all, and ultimately to destroy many of them, 
that he might show his mercy in healing the 
broken bones of others, in restoring them to 
comfort and happiness, and in imparting to them 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 59 

the peculiar joys of so great a deliverance ! How 
is it, according to the same theory, that God has 
not, in the true and fearful import of the phrase, 
made a great part of mankind on purpose to 
damn them V s " To sin and be damned to all 
eternity is the result, and the sole result in res- 
pect to the greater part of mankind, designed, 
preferred, and purposed by their Maker. If this 
is not creating men on purpose to damn them, 
let any one tell what would be." " This theory, 
too, limits the goodness of God. God, according 
to Dr. Tyler could, if he would, have secured the 
perfect holiness of this universe of moral beings 
forever, but the perfect holiness of all would 
have secured the perfect happiness of all. When 
therefore God could, if he would, have made a 
universe of perfectly holy and happy beings, he 
preferred, decreed, and made one comprising sin 
and its everlasting miseries ! We ask, is this 
goodness?" " Celestial spirits, if they utter 
truth in their songs, praise God, not because he 
vindicates his law, and sustains his throne by 
the punishment of beings who have violated any 
will of his, but for exactly fulfilling the sole pur- 
pose of their creation ; they praise God for that 
peculiar delight, those higher and exquisite rap- 
tures, which they could enjoy only by means of 
the agonies of others in everlasting fire ! Dr. 
Tyler will have it that a benevolent God could 
not be satisfied with the perfect holiness and per- 
fect happiness of all his moral creatures ; but to 
raise to some higher, conceivable perfection, the 
happiness of those who are saved, they must owe 
it, in no stinted measure to the eternal agonies of 
the damned! Such is God, such is heaven, accord- 



60 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

ing to this theory." " We go further, and ask, 
in what respect satan is more truly criminal as 
a tempter than God is, according to this scheme ? 
If satan tempts, with the single purpose to se- 
cure the perpetration of iniquity, so does God, 
according to this scheme. If he purposes 
some personal advantage by the sins of oth- 
ers, so does God, according to this scheme. 
If he does it to secure the final and end- 
less ruin of others, so, according to this 
scheme, does God. If Dr. Tyler should say 
that satan's intention is evil, and that of God 
benevolent, we answer first, by asking Dr. Tyler 
to prove this by their doings ; and secondly, by 
affirming, that, according to the scheme in ques- 
tion, the evil intention of satan is the crowning 
excellence of the act. 

" This theory, if carried out into its legitimate 
consequences, leads to universalism, to infidelity, 
and to atheism. Dr. Tyler maintains that God 
can secure the holiness and happiness of all his 
moral creatures. It follows, therefore, that God 
will secure the holiness and happiness of all his 
moral creatures. Of course, all men will be 
saved. But this is not all. According to this 
scheme, the divine authority of the Bible is sub- 
verted. This book confessedly abounds in the 
most unqualified declarations of the future end- 
less misery of multitudes of the human race. 
But how can a book which so explicitly and 
abundantly contradicts demonstrable, known 
truth, be divine? Especially, how can a book 
pretend to claim an Omnipotent and benevolent 
God for its author, which exhibits him as creating 
myriads of beings, because he prefers on the 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 61 

whole, their sin and everlasting misery to their 
perfect holiness and happiness ? As a benevolent 
being, he must be disposed to prevent it. But 
according to Dr. Tyler, the Scriptures clearly 
teach that God will not secure the perfect holi- 
ness and happiness of his moral creation, when 
he can secure it. How then can a book which 
belies every attribute of a perfect God pretend to 
claim his authority? 

"Apply now the principles of Dr. Tyler in 
another form, and atheism is the consequence. 
Dr. Tyler will admit that God is disposed 
to prevent all evil — in itself considered — 
throughout his creation. The argument then 
for atheism furnished by this theory may be 
thus stated. If there was a God, that is, a being 
of infinite power and goodness, he could prevent, 
and would be disposed, and therefore would in 
fact, prevent all evil throughout his creation. 
But evil exists. Therefore, there is not a being 
of infinite power and goodness — there is no 
God.'' " We admit the fact, that the foregoing 
reasoning is that of the universalist, the infidel, 
and the atheist. But we ask, who furnishes and 
sustains its premises ; and what conclusions, 
when the premises are admitted, are more unan- 
swerable ? We cannot but say, what we believe 
in the integrity of our heart, that supralapsarian 
Calvinists furnish the grand principle on which 
these conclusions rest, and combining their pow- 
ers of argument in its defence, with all their 
means of influencing the faith of others, give to 
it, and to the conclusions founded on it, a delu- 
sive and fearful infallibility in the minds of 
thousands. The principle is, ax Omnipotent 
6 



62 origin and progress 

God by the mere dint of power, can secure 
the universal holiness of his moral crea- 
TURES.'' 

" Sure we are, that a very limited acquain- 
tance with facts, would show that the prin- 
ciple advanced by Dr. Tyler and others is the 
very same which, in the hands of Voltaire and 
other enemies of the gospel, has spread infidelity 
and atheism to such a fearful extent throughout 
Europe, and is in fact the basis of all that lati- 
tudinarianism which rejects Christianity, and 
calmly reposes on false and undefined notions of 
the power and goodness of God." 

" Indeed, we know not a more striking illus- 
tration of the appalling tendency and results of 
adopting an unauthorised elementary principle in 
reasoning. When men reason from principles 
which the friends of Christianity regard as false 
or groundless, there is hope that their errors will 
be exposed, and that the truth will be triumph- 
antly defended. But when the professed advo- 
cates of Christianity espouse and vindicate the 
very principles, which, in the way of legitimate 
deduction, support the most destructive error, 
what are we to expect but that light will become 
darkness, and whole nations perish?" " The 
theory in question confounds right and wrong, 
and thus subverts all moral distinctions. It is 
not the name which constitutes moral action 
right or wrong. If sin, as Dr. Woods says of it, 
'is undoubtedly calculated for the highest good 
of the universe,' or as another says of it, ' is of a 
most glorious tendency,' then it is morally right- 
Sin, therefore, in every instance of its occur- 
rence, is proved by the highest kind of evidence, 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 63 

to be the best kind of moral action. Thus, sin 
is no longer sin; vice is no longer vice. Right 
and wrong, according to this theory have changed 
places ; and what God has pronounced, and man 
regarded, as wrong moral action, is right moral 
action. If Dr. Tyler should reply, as Dr. Woods 
does, by merely saying, that this is a wounding 
misrepresentation ; we answer, first, that it is 
not a misrepresentation, and that no unpreju- 
diced mind can be stultified into the belief that 
the necessary means of the greatest good is not 
an excellent thing — even the best thing in its 
place. We answer, secondly, if this representa- 
tion is ivounding, let the theory that justifies it 
be abandoned, and the wound will be healed." 

" If Dr. Tyler should say, that he utterly de- 
nies that sin is a good thing ; — we answer we are 
fully aware of this, and regard it as a peculiarly 
grateful fact. But then Dr. Tyler also asserts 
that sin is a good thing. And is a man to be al- 
lowed, without correction, to say that which is 
not true half the time, because he says that which 
is true the other half? Now it is this happy in- 
consistency which saves those who maintain this 
theory, from being the very worst of here- 
tics." "Nothing worse can be imputed to the 
worst of men than the theory under considera- 
tion, imputes to God. According to this theory, 
God purposes sin, not for its own sake, or in it- 
self considered, but as the means of good, i. e. on 
account of certain advantages resulting from it. 
Now the same things are true in every substan- 
tial respect of the assassin." 

" Dr. Tyler, according to his principles, can 
not show that acts of assassination have not been, 



64 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

and may not be, perpetrated from the same mo- 
tives as those with which he represents God as, on 
the whole, preferring sin to holiness, viz. a de- 
sire to promote the general good." 

" If Dr. Tyler should say, that the objections 
which we have brought against this theory, are 
the same as those which the enemies of sound 
doctrine commonly charge on the doctrine of the 
divine purpose respecting sin, we answer, that 
this is more easily said than proved. It is in- 
deed readily confessed, that these objections have 
been often charged on that form of the doctrine 
which is taught by supralapsarian Calvinists, viz. 
the theory that God prefers the existence of sin 
rather than holiness in its stead. But it admits 
of a question, whether these objections were ever 
alleged against the true doctrine, respecting the 
existence of sin. Who among Arminians, or 
even Unitarians, at least in this age, would deny 
the universality of God's providential government 
and purposes, as the basis of confidence and sub- 
mission under all evil." 

These extracts are a specimen of the senti- 
ment, style, and spirit of this Review. You can 
now judge whether the language of Dr. Porter in 
reference to it is too severe. 

That the Arminians and Unitarians do not ob- 
ject to Dr. Taylor's views of this subject, is very 
true. But whether this is a recommendation of 
his views, is a point about which different opin- 
ions will be entertained. 

Immediately after the publication of this Re- 
view, Dr. Tyler wrote to the editor inquiring 
whether he might be permitted to reply to it in 
the Christian Spectator, and was informed that 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 65 

no reply could be admitted, unless it was a short 
letter of a page or two, accompanied by such 
remarks as the editor might see fit to append to 
it. Of this fact, Dr. Porter speaks in severe 
terms. In one of his letters, he says, " within a 
day or two, the Mirror came to hand, in which 
the unworthy subterfuge of the editor in refusing 
any reply, at least any adequate one is repre- 
hended. This fact ought to be generally known. 
It shows a systematic party disingenuousness, 
that cannot commend itself to the Christian pub- 
lic, and that could hardly have been tolerated 
until this time if it had been understood. " In 
another letter he says, " Dr. Taylor should have 
a jog as to occupying the Spirit of the Pilgrims, 
while the Spectator has been so closely shut up 
against one sentence in opposition to his views, 
except as quoted by its own writers for comment. 
No work in our country has been so narrowly 
conducted." 

Yours, very affectionately. 



6* 



LETTER VIII. 



March 7, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

In the Spirit of the Pilgrims for May, 1833, 
Dr. Tyler published an article in which he ex- 
posed the misrepresentations which Dr. Taylor 
had made of his sentiments, particularly in the 
Review of which I gave you some account in my 
last letter. Soon after this, Dr. Taylor publish- 
ed a letter addressed to the Editor of the Chris- 
tian Spectator, the object of which was to show 
that he and Dr. Tyler were, after all, perfectly 
agreed. This was a very extraordinary produc- 
tion, and was, I believe, so regarded by not a 
few of Dr. Taylor's particular friends, as well as 
by other portions of the community. That after 
having charged Dr. Tyler with adopting theories 
which involve the positions that " sin is a good 
thing; 5 ' that "God is the responsible author of 
sin ;" that " the divine lawgiver is a deceiver ;" 
that "God is a criminal tempter;" that " in no 
sense is satan more truly criminal as a tempter 
than God is ;" that " we ought to praise God for 
all the sin which we and others have ever com- 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 67 

mitted;" and after having affirmed, that nothing 
but the inconsistency of Dr. Tyler saves him 
from being " the very worst of heretics," 
and that his theories, " if carried out into their 
legitimate consequences, lead to universalis*!, 
to infidelity, and to atheism ;" that Dr. 
Taylor, after having said all this, and much more 
to the same effect, should come forward and af- 
firm, that " we perfectly agree in every partic- 
ular respecting these important points," was not 
a little surprising. Yet this he did, and that too 
without retracting a single position which he had 
taken, and without showing, or attempting to 
show, that Dr. Tyler had retracted anything. 

Dr. Tyler published in a pamphlet some re- 
marks on this letter, which closed the contro- 
versy between him and Dr. Taylor. In these re- 
marks, after bringing into view a number of 
points which he had explicitly maintained, and 
comparing them with the statements of Dr. Tay- 
lor, he proceeds to examine Dr. Taylor's mode 
of reasoning, by which he attempts to show that 
there is no difference of opinion between them. 
He says : 

" He (Dr. Taylor) does not pretend that I 
have formally retracted any of the positions 
which he has controverted. But because we are 
agreed on certain points which have never been 
a matter of dispute between us, he infers that we 
must be agreed on all the points in debate. As 
if he should say, Dr. Taylor and I are agreed that 
there is a God, and that the Bible is his word, 
therefore our views harmonize on every point of 
Christian doctrine. Now any one can see, that 
in this reasoning, the conclusion is broader than 



68 ORIGIN AXD PROGRESS 

the premises. Dr. Taylor has said, c It is con- 
fessedly unauthorized to charge opinions upon 
any man on the ground of mere inference.' Yet 
this is the very thing which he has done through- 
out the whole of his last letter. He infers that 
I admit certain positions (in the face of my most 
explicit declarations to the contrary,) because I 
admit certain other positions. 

" I will endeavor to illustrate Dr. Taylor's 
mode of reasoning by one or two examples. 
Suppose that a Unitarian and a Calvinist are dis- 
puting in respect to the doctrine of the trinity. 
The Unitarian charges the Calvinist with main- 
taining that there are three Gods, and goes on to 
show that there is but one God. The Calvinist 
replies, you misrepresent me, I have never main- 
tained that there are three Gods — I have shown 
that the doctrine of the trinity does not involve 
any such sentiment. I believe as firmly as you 
do, that there is but one God. I perceive, then, 
rejoins the Unitarian, that we are perfectly agreed. 
I now understand you to deny the doctrine of the 
trinity. Again : Suppose A. and B. are discuss- 
ing the question whether all men will be saved. 
Says A. to B. you maintain that Christ died for 
only a part of the human race, whereas the scrip- 
tures say that he tasted death for every man. B. 
replies, I do not believe as you represent me. I 
admit that the atonement of Christ is sufficient 
for all men, and that salvation is freely offered to 
all. There is, then, replies A. no difference be- 
tween us. I understand you to admit that all 
men will be saved. These are exact specimens 
of Dr. Taylor's mode of reasoning. He says, 
1 Dr. Tyler does not believe, but denies that sin 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 69 

is the best thing, or a good thing in any sense.' 
From this he infers that I agree with him in re- 
jecting the positions, that ' the existence of sin 
is, on the whole, for the best.' and that 'God, all 
things considered, prefers sin to holiness in all 
instances in which the former takes place' — posi- 
tions which he knows I have most explicitly and 
uniformly maintained." 

Dr. Tyler closes his remarks with a summary 
view of the main points of differ ence between 
him and Dr. Taylor, and of their practical im- 
portance. He says : 

1. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
lief, that God could not have prevented all sin in 
amoral system.'' 

We have seen the importance which Dr. Tay- 
lor attaches to this point of difference. In the 
Review mentioned in my last letter, he repre- 
sents the denial of this position, as leading to 
Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism. " I 
also regard it as important; for it must, as it 
seems to me, very materially affect our views of 
the character and government of God. Accord- 
ing to this statement, God has created a universe 
of moral beings which he cannot govern. Were 
I to adopt this position, I could not regard Je- 
hovah as an Almighty being ; nor could I feel 
the least assurance that he will be able to accom- 
plish his purposes or fulfil his promises. If his 
creatures are so independent of him, that he can- 
not control their moral actions at pleasure, what 
assurance can he give us, that every Saint and 
every Angel will not yet apostatize, and spread 
desolation through the moral universe. Besides, 
if God has not a perfect dominion over the hearts 



70 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

and moral conduct of his creatures, how can we 
consistently pray that God would incline our 
hearts, or the hearts of others? And how can 
we regard the afflictions, brought upon us by the 
agency of men, as divine judgments; or the 
blessings we receive, through their instrumental- 
ity, as divine mercies ? This view of the subject, 
as it seems to me, tends directly to discourage 
prayer, and takes away the principal motives to 
submission and gratitude. 

2. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
lief, that the existence of sin is not, on the whole, 
for the best, and that a greater amount of good 
would have been secured had all God's creatures 
remained holy, than will result from the present 
system. 

" According to this view of the subject, as it 
appears to me, God must look with everlasting 
regret upon the moral universe. While he pre- 
fers, all things considered, that all his creatures 
should be holy and happy, and while he is doing 
all in his power to make them so, he must be lit- 
erally grieved and unhappy to find his efforts con- 
stantly defeated. And is this the view which the 
scriptures give us of the ever blessed God — 
that God who has said, my council shall stand, 
and I will do all my pleasure. Besides- — the 
above position subverts the doctrine of special 
grace. If God regards universal holiness, as, on 
the whole, desirable, it must be his desire, all 
things consideied, that everv individual should 
be holy ; and he must of course do all in his 
power to make every individual holy. What, 
then, becomes of the doctrine of special, distin- 
guishing, sovereign, and electing grace ! 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 71 

3. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
lief, that God, all things considered, prefers holi- 
ness to sin, in all instances in which the latter 
takes place. 

" This position, as I have shown, utterly subverts 
the doctrine of decrees. It amounts, in my view, 
to a declaration that God does not in any sense 
prefer, and of course, has not decreed the exis- 
tence of sin ; for sin certainly would not exist, 
if in all instances, holiness should exist in its 
stead. How is it possible for God to prefer, on 
any account, the existence of sin,m any instance, 
if, all things considered, that is, on all accounts, 
he prefers something else in its stead, in all in- 
stances ? I have also shown that this position 
subverts the doctrine of election. 

4. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, 
that mankind come into the world with the same 
nature, in kind, as that with which Adam was 
created. 

" According to this view of the subject, Adam 
was not created holy, nor is there, as I can see, 
any real connexion between the sin of Adam 
and that of his posterity. This position, there- 
fore, entirely subverts the doctrine of original 
sin, as generally maintained by Calvinists. Be- 
sides; if this position be true, infants are in no 
sense sinners, and do not need to be born again, 
nor to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. If 
admitted to heaven, they will be accepted on the 
ground of their own righteousness, and without 
regeneration, contrary to the express declarations 
of Christ and the apostle. ' Except a man be 
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heav- 



'3 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

en. By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be 
justified.' 

5. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
lief, that the only reason that the posterity of 
Adam do not exhibit the same moral character 
which Adam exhibited, is not that they hare a 
different nature, but that they are placed in dif- 
ferent circumstances. 

" This, if I mistake not, is the precise ground 
which the opposers of Calvinism have uniformly 
taken, when controverting the doctrine of origin- 
al sin ; and it seems to me to be intimately con- 
nected with those systems of belief which en- 
tirely discard the doctrines of grace. Indeed, 
if the depravity of man is owing solely to the 
circumstances in which he is placed, it would 
seem that no other remedy would be needed for 
it but a change of circumstances. Consequent- 
ly, a man does not need a radical change of heart 
by the power of the Holy Spirit. 

6. " Dr. Taylor and I differ in regard to the na- 
ture of selfishness. According to him, selfish- 
ness does not consist in making our own happi- 
ness our ultimate end, but in iove of the world, 
or in preferring the world to God, as our portion 
or chief good. 

7. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, 
that i self-love is the primary cause of all moral 
action.' He says, " The being constituted with 
a capacity for happiness, desires to be happy, and 
knowing that he is capable of deriving happiness 
from different objects, considers from which the 
greatest happiness may be derived ; and as in this 
respect he judges, or estimates their relative value, 
so he chooses one or the other as his chief good.' 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 



73 



"This I regard as one of the most dangerous 
parts of Dr. Taylor's system ; for it affects the 
very essence of religion — the very nature of ho- 
liness. According to him, self-love, or the de- 
sire of happiness, is the grand principle by which 
every being, whether sinful or holy, is actuated. 
All have the same ultimate end. ' Of all specific 
voluntary action, the happiness of the agent, in 
some form, is the ultimate end.' According to 
this statement, the distinction of moral character 
which exists among men, does not arise from the 
fact that they have different ultimate ends, but 
from the fact, that they adopt different means to 
obtain the same ultimate end. The reason that 
one is holy, and another sinful, is, the one seeks 
his own happiness by choosing God as his por- 
tion and chief good : the other seeks his own 
happiness, by choosing the world as his portion or 
chief good. Both have a supreme regard to 
their own happiness. Consequently there is no 
radical distinction between holiness and sin. 
Both may be traced to the same principle of ac- 
tion. I cannot but say, what I honestly believe, 
that the religion which is in accordance with this 
theory, is a selfish, and of course, a spurious] re- 
ligion." 

" Besides — according to this theory, depravity 
consists in ignorance ; and all that is necessary 
to effect the conversion of sinners, is, to enlighten 
them as to the best means of securing their high- 
est happiness. Regeneration, therefore, by the 
agency of the Holy Spirit cannot be necessary. 
8. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my belief, 
that sinners may so resist the grace of God as to 
render it impossible for God to convert them. 
7 



74 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

He says, 4 1 do not believe that the grace of 
God, can be truly said to be irresistible, in the 
primary and proper import of the term. But I 
do believe that in all cases, it may be resisted by 
man as a free moral agent ; and that when it is 
effectual to conversion, it is unresisted.' He 
also says, ' Free moral agents can do wrong un- 
der all possible preventing influence. Using their 
powers as they may use them, they will sin ; and 
no one can show that some such agents will not 
use their powers as they may use them. This 
possibility that free agents will sin, remains, (sup- 
pose what else you will,) so long as moral agency 
remains; and how can it be proved that a thing 
will not be, when for aught that appears it may 
be ? When, in view of all the facts and evidence 
in the case, it remains true that it may be, what 
evidence or proof can exist that it ivill not beV 

9. " Dr. Taylor maintains, contrary to my be- 
lief, that antecedent to regeneration, the selfish 
principle is suspended in the sinner's heart, that 
he ceases to sin, and uses the means of regene- 
ration, with motives which are neither right nor 
wrong. 

" The tendency of these views, I have pointed 
out at length in my Strictures and Vindication, 
to which I beg leave to refer the reader. If I 
mistake not, I have shown that they lead to the 
subversion of important doctrines, and deeply 
affect the interests of evangelical religion." 

" It has sometimes been said, that the differences 
between Dr. Taylor and his brethren, relate sole- 
ly to theories, and that they are agreed as to all 
the important facts taught in the Bible. This, 
however, in my view, is entirely a mistake. The 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. /D 

question whether God was able to prevent sin in 
a moral system is a question of fact. So the 
questions whether sin is, on the whole, for the 
best, — whether God, all things considered, pre- 
fers holiness to sin in all instances in which the 
latter takes place — whether mankind come into 
the world with the same nature, in kind, as that 
with which Adam was created — whether self-love 
is the primary cause of moral action — and wheth- 
er the selfish principle is suspended in the sin- 
ner's heart antecedent to regeneration, are ques- 
tions relating to matters of fact ; and questions 
too, which have an important bearing upon the 
system of divine truth. Our views of christian 
doctrine, and of experimental religion, must be 
materially modified by the manner in which these 
questions are decided." 

I have made the foregoing extracts for the pur- 
pose of enabling you to see at a single glance 
the prominent points on which the New Haven 
divines differ from their brethren. That after all 
which they have said, they should now claim that 
there is no difference, or at least no important 
difference between them and their brethren, is 
truly surprising. Dr. Tyler closes his remarks 
with the following observations on this point. 

He says : " What I have maintained is, that 
he (Dr. Taylor) has adopted principles which, 
when carried out in their legitimate consequen- 
ces, lead to the subversion of fundamental doc- 
trines. It is on this account that I regard his 
errors as dangerous, and the difference between 
us as important. Still I have not attached to 
them the importance given to them by Dr. Tay- 
lor. I have never said, that nothing but his in- 



76 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

consistency saves him from being ' the very 
worst of heretics' — that his theories 6 lead to 
Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism' — 
and that they involve such horrid blasphemy as 
he has charged upon my theories. Surely, Dr. 
Taylor and his associates are the last men in the 
world, who ought to say that the differences be- 
tween them and their brethren are of little im- 
portance. If they really believe that their breth- 
ren do maintain such shocking and blasphemous 
errors as they have imputed to them in the Chris- 
tian Spectator, they ought, in order to be consist- 
ent, to renounce all fellowship with them at once. 
How can .they hold fellowship with men who 
maintain that ' sin is a good thing, even the best 
thing V 

" Yet they have imputed this sentiment not only 
to me, but to Dr. Bellamy, to Dr. Hopkins, to 
Dr. Strong, to Dr. Woods, and to all who adopt 
their views in relation to the divine permission 
of sin. They have charged them with holding 
sentiments which involve the positions ' that the 
Divine Lawgiver is a deceiver' — that ' God is a 
criminal tempter,' and many other consequences 
which no sober man can contemplate without 
horror. And do they wonder that their brethren 
are dissatisfied ? Can they suppose that the min- 
isters and churches of New England, will look 
with indifference upon such representations of 
doctrines which they have ever regarded as the 
truth of God, and which were taught by those 
eminent divines whose praise is in all the church- 
es ? It is truly with an ill grace that they should 
now pretend, that there is no difference between 
them and their brethren. They are the men who 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. / / 

have magnified this difference, and attached to 
it momentous consequences. If they are con- 
vinced of their error, let them frankly and hon- 
orably retract. But let them not, in one breath, 
charge their brethren with maintaining senti- 
ments which lead to the very worst of here- 
sies, and involve the most horrid blasphemies ; 
and in the next, say, we are perfectly agreed. 
This, surely, is not the way to heal the bleeding 
wounds of Zion, and to restore peace to the 
heritage of the Lord." 

This pamphlet, as I observed, closed the con- 
troversy between Dr. Tyler and Dr. Taylor. 
Although Dr. Taylor had given to the controver- 
sy so serious an aspect by charging upon his op- 
ponent the most blasphemous errors ; and al- 
though Dr. Tyler called upon him in this pamph- 
let to retract his charges or substantiate them — 
yet he has not deigned to do either. Meanwhile, 
the watchword of the party for the last three or 
four years has been," No difference." 

Yours very affectionately. 



7* 



LETTER IX. 



March 13, 183?. 

My Dear Brother : 

In 1833, Dr. Griffin published his treatise on 
" The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency," in which 
he examines the theories of the New Haven Di- 
vines so far as they have a bearing on this sub- 
ject ; and shows most conclusively, that many of 
their positions are essentially Arminian. This 
is a valuable work, and ought to be extensively 
circulated and read. No answer to it has as yet 
been published. 

On the 10th of September, 1833, a conven- 
tion of ministers was held in East Windsor, to 
take into consideration the expediency of estab- 
lishing a new Theological Seminary in Connec- 
ticut. This was a very interesting meeting. Two 
days were spent in prayerful deliberation, during 
which time, the great Head of the Church seem- 
ed to grant them special tokens of his presence. 
There appeared to be an unusual spirit of prayer. 
Nothing like a spirit of party was apparent in 
their deliberations ; but great spirituality and 
harmony of feeling pervaded the meeting. Sen-. 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 79 

sible of the responsibility resting upon them, 
they acted in the fear of God. " The great and 
all-absorbing inquiry was, what do the honor 
of God, and the interest of his kingdom demand ? 
They were unanimous in their result. Fully 
satisfied that they had discovered the path of duty, 
they resolved to go forward in the strength of the 
Lord." Accordingly, they organized themselves 
into a Pastoral Union, formed a constitution, and 
appointed a Board of Trustees. Shortly after, 
the Trustees proceeded to locate the Institution, 
\o elect a Faculty, and to provide the necessary 
buildings, library, &,c. On the 13th of May, 
1834, the corner stone of the Seminary edifice 
was laid with appropriate services ; and on the 
same day, the President and Professor of Eccle- 
siastical History were inducted into office. In 
October, of the same year, the Professor of Bib- 
lical Literature was inaugurated, and the Semi- 
nary went into full operation with a respectable 
number of students. Hitherto the Lord has 
seemed to prosper the infant Seminary far be- 
yond the expectations of its founders. May it 
continue to enjoy his smiles, and be made instru- 
mental of incalculable good. The reasons which 
led to the establishment of this Seminary, are 
fully set forth in the " Appeal to the Public,'' 
published by the Trustees, in October, 1834 — 
a copy of which I take the liberty to send you. 
This appeal was occasioned by an attack made 
upon the Seminary in a Manifesto from the The- 
ological Professors in Yale College. I must give 
you some account of this Manifesto. 

The Rev. Daniel Dow, a member of the Cor- 



80 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

*J*oration of Yale College, having been appointed 
on a committee to attend the examination of the 
Theological School, and being called upon to 
make a report to the Corporation, at their annual 
meeting in September, 1834, took occasion to 
object to some of the doctrines taught in the 
School, and to suggest that the Professor of 
Didactic Theology had taught and published 
sentiments inconsistent with the creed on which 
this Professorship was founded. This led to 
some discussion in the Corporation, to a confer- 
ence with the Professors, and to the Manifesto 
of which I have just spoken. 

It may be proper here to state, that since 1722 
until recently, all the officers of Yale College 
have been required to declare their assent to the 
Confession of Faith contained in the Saybrook 
Platform, which is almost entirely the same as 
that of the Westminster divines. But within a 
few years past, the test-law of the College has 
been repealed ; so that now, neither the Presi- 
dent nor Professors are obliged to give their as- 
sent to any Confession of Faith ; nor are the cor- 
poration authorized to dismiss them from office 
on account of any religious opinions whatever. 
This applies to the theological no less than to the 
academical Professors, with the exception of the 
Professor of Didactic Theology. 

But the repeal of the law could not affect this 
Professorship, because there were certain stipu- 
lations with the founders, which it was beyond 
the power of the corporation to repeal. The 
principal subscribers to the fund, made the fol- 
lowing requisition: " Every Professor, who shall 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY, 81 

receive the income or revenue of this fund, shall 
be examined as to his faith, and be required to 
make a written declaration thereof agreeable to 
the following : ' I hereby declare my free assent 
to the Confession of Faith, and Ecclesiastical 
Discipline, agreed upon by the Churches of the 
State in 1708 — (i. e. the Say brook Platform.) 
If at any future period, any person who fills the 
chair of this Professorship, holds or teaches doc- 
trines contrary to those referred to, it shall be 
the duty of the Corporation of the College to 
dismiss him from office forthwith; and if they 
do not dismiss him, then we reserve to our heirs 
the right to demand the several sums which we 
have paid, or may hereafter pay respectively. 5 " 

The Corporation, after reciting the foregoing 
in a preamble, passed the following vote : " This 
Board doth accordingly found and establish in 
this College, on said fund, a Professorship of 
Didactic Theology, on the terms, conditions, 
and limitations expressed in said instrument 
signed by Timothy Dwight and others." 

It would seem, from the foregoing statement, 
that the Professor of Didactic Theology is re- 
quired to give his unqualified assent to the Con- 
fession of Faith contained in the Saybrook Plat- 
form. It was so understood by Mr. Dow when 
he made his report to the Corporotion. But the 
Professors in their Manifesto, defend the princi- 
ple that a subscription to articles of Faith, is 
made only for " substance of doctrine." They 
admit that Dr. Taylor does hold and teach doc- 
trines contrary to those contained in the Say- 
brook Platform. They say, moreover, that while 
Professor elect, he "had certain knowledge. 



82 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

from personal intercourse with the founders, that 
had he embraced every minute doctrine of the 
Confession, it would have been considered a de- 
cisive disqualification for the office." This is 
certainly a very extraordinary declaration ; and 
it naturally suggests several inquiries. 

What could be the object of the founders, to 
require their Professor to give his unqualified 
assent to a creed, and then inform him that if he 
did comply with their requisition fully and sin- 
cerely, they should consider him disqualified for 
the office ? Was such a thing ever heard of be- 
fore on the face of the globe ? Why did they 
not prescribe such a creed as they should be will- 
ing to have their Professor subscribe, ex animo, 
and without reservation ? Or if it was their in- 
tention that assent should be given to the creed 
" for substance of doctrine," why did they not say 
so ? And if Dr. Taylor intended to give his as- 
sent only " for substance of doctrine," why did 
he not say so 1 If he had informed the Corpo- 
ration, that he could not give an unqualified as- 
sent to the creed, and if the Corporation had 
been authorized by the founders to accept, and 
had actually accepted of a qualified assent, the 
case would be different. 

But it does not appear that the Corporation 
are authorized to accept of any but an unqualifi- 
ed assent ; and so far as appears, the assent given 
by Dr. Taylor was unqualified. And is the doc- 
trine to be maintained and defended, that when 
persons give their assent to Confessions of Faith 
in the most solemn manner, and in the most un- 
qualified language, they are not to be understood 
as meaning what they affirm ? 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 83 

Besides — on what is this Professorship found- 
ed, and for what cause are the Corporation re- 
quired to dismiss the Professor from office ? The 
founders, so far as appears from their statutes, 
make it the duty of the Corporation to dismiss 
the Professor from office, if he holds or teaches 
doctrines contrary to those contained in the 
Platform. Yet it is admitted that the present 
Professor does hold and teach doctrines contrary 
to those above referred to. But it is contended, 
that he is not liable, on this account, to impeach- 
ment, because he had " certain knowledge from 
personal intercourse with the founders," that it 
is their will that he should hold and teach doc- 
trines contrary to the Confession to which they 
have required his free assent in the most unqual- 
ified terms. What then is the creed by which 
this Professor is bound ? Is it the Saybrook 
Platform " for substance of doctrine?" But this 
is not mentioned by the founders. And if we 
may suppose it to have been so understood, how is 
it to be ascertained what is implied in subscrip- 
tion to a creed "for substance of doctrine?" 
How much may be rejected, and still the sub- 
stance be retained ? Who shall draw the line, 
and where shall the line be drawn ? 

But I have still another question in relation to 
this subject. Can a person be truly said to re- 
ceive a confession of Faith " for substance of 
doctrine," when in his view that confession con- 
tains the most destructive errors ? According 
to Dr. Taylor, the Saybrook Platform contains 
principles which lead by legitimate consequence 
to "the very worst of heresies" — " to Universal- 
ism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism," — principles 



84 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

which involve the positions, that " sin is a good 
thing" — " good in itself — " the only real good to 
man" — that " when men sin, they do the very 
best thing they can do" — that " God is the re- 
sponsible author of sin" — that " the terms of 
salvation, and the exhibition of motives to com- 
ply with them, are a delusive mockery" — that 
" God is a criminal tempter" — that " in no re- 
spect is satan more truly criminal as a tempter 
than God is" — that " we ought to praise God for 
all the sin which we and others have ever com- 
mitted" — that "the worst kind of moral action 
is the best" — and that " mankind are bound to 
believe that they shall please and glorify God 
more by sin, than by obedience, and therefore to 
act accordingly." Now is it possible for a man 
to receive " for substance of doctrine," a Con- 
fession of Faith, when he believes it to contain 
such horrid and blasphemous errors? 

In this Manifesto, as I have already remarked, 
the Professors take notice of the establishment 
of the Seminary at East Windsor, and endeavor 
to make the impression that the founders and 
friends of the new institution are laboring under 
a delusion in supposing that any important errors 
are taught in the New Haven School ; and that 
under the influence of this delusion, they have 
gone forward to establish a Seminary which is 
not called for, and ought not to be patronized by 
the Christian public. This attack called forth 
the Appeal of the Trustees, which I have al- 
ready mentioned. To this Appeal, the Profes- 
sors replied, in a manner and with a spirit, which 
did them little credit. About the same time the 
Rev. Mr. Dow published a pamphlet, the object 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 85 

of which is to show what is the New Haven Di- 
vinity. It is made up of extracts from the wri- 
tings of the New Haven Divines, together with 
some short comments, suited to show the nature 
and tendency of their doctrines. This book is 
very useful to any one who wishes to ascertain 
what the new divinity of New England is, with- 
out looking over the various publications in 
which it has been taught for the last eight or 
ten years. 

I am yours, very affectionately. 



LETTER X. 



March 15, 183?. 

My Dear Brother : 

You desire to know what has been Dr. Beech* 
er's course in relation to the recent controver- 
sies in New England, and to what extent he has 
identified himself with the New Haven divines. 
I regret exceedingly that there should be any 
occasion for such inquiries. A minister of Dr. 
Beecher's age and standing in the church, ought 
to be " an epistle known and read by all men." 
There ought to be no cause for doubt or supi- 
cion in regard to his theological opinions. And 
yet, I suppose it to be true, that notwithstanding 
all which has been said and written by himself 
and others, there are even now, very different 
opinions in regard to his doctrinal views. There 
are those who do not hesitate to affirm that, on 
most points at least, he is a thorough Calvinist, 
and that his sentiments are entirely opposed to 
the New Haven speculations ; while there are 
others who are equally confident that his views, 
in the main, coincide with those of Dr. Taylor. 
How he has contrived to make these different 
impressions on the minds of different individu- 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 87 

als, and I may add, on the minds of the same 
individuals, at different times, is a question which 
some hare found it very difficult to answer. 

That he does not agree on all points with the 
New Haven divines, is certainly true, if any con- 
fidence is to be reposed in the statements con- 
tained in his " Views in Theology/' recently 
published. On the doctrine of original sin, for 
instance, his views and theirs are irreconcileably 
at variance. Instead of maintaining that " man- 
kind come into the world with the same nature 
in kind as that with which Adam was created," 
that " they possess no constitutional propensity 
to sin/' that " infants are innocent/' or have 
" no moral character," that " they sustain the 
same relation to the moral government of God as 
brute animals," he maintains directly the oppo- 
site of these opinions. He says : 

" It would seem that I am supposed to hold 
the Pelagian doctrine on the subject ; that I deny 
that Adam was the federal head and represen- 
tative of his race — that the covenant was made 
not only w T ith Adam, but also with his posterity ; 
that the guilt of his sin w r as imputed to them ; 
that there is any such thing as native depravity ; 
or that infants are depraved. That on the con- 
trary I hold and teach, that infants are innocent, 
and as pure as Adam before the fall ; and that 
each one stands or falls for himself, as he rises 
to personal accountability; and that there is 
no such thing as original sin, descending 
from Adam by ordinary generation ; and that 
original sin is not sin, or in any sense de- 
serving of God's wrath and curse. Now 
every one of these assumed errors of my faith, 



88 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

I deny to be my faith." He says also, " Adam 
was created holy, and placed in a state of proba- 
tion, the consequences of which were to extend not 
only to himself, but to his posterity. If he con- 
tinued holy, they would be born holy. If he be- 
came a sinner, his children would be born de- 
praved. In the hour of temptation, he fell, and 
lost for a world the inheritance of life, and en- 
tailed upon it the sad inheritance of depravity 
and wo. For, if by one man's offence death 
reigned by one, how did death reign by one 
man's offence, if the depravity of his race was 
not the consequence of his sin? If his poster- 
ity are born holy, (innocent) and become sinners 
by their own act, uninfluenced by what Adam 
did, then death enters the world not by one man; 
but by every man. And so death has passed 
upon all men, for that all have sinned ; passed 
upon infants possessing a depraved nature, 
though they had not committed actual sin. They, 
as well as adults are subject to pain and death. 
They, as well as adults, need a Saviour, and a 
change of heart by the Holy Ghost to fit them 
for heaven." He says again, " Original sin is 
the effect of Adam's sin upon the constitution of 
his race, in consequence of his being their fede- 
ral head and representative, by divine appoint- 
ment or covenant." " It consists in the perver- 
sion of those constitutional powers and suscep- 
tibilities, which in Adam before the fall eventua- 
ted in actual and perfect obedience, and which, 
in their perverted condition by the fall, eventu- 
ate in actual and total depravity." " It is a bias 
or tendency of nature to actual sin, which baffles 
all motives, and all influence, short of Omnipo- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 89 

tence, to prevent its eventuation in total actual 
depravity, or to restore the perverted will and 
affections to holy obedience." " It is denomina- 
ted by Edwards, and justly, an exceedingly evil 
and depraved nature." 

In these passages, Dr. Beecher advances the 
very principles which Dr. Taylor represents as 
involving the positions that "God is the respon- 
sible author of sin," that " to sin is the very 
end of man's creation, the highest end of his 
being, the chief end of man," that " man is 
doomed to sin by a natural and fatal necessity," 
that " he is naturally unable to avoid sin, and be- 
come holy, and therefore is not a moral agent," 
4i that the terms of salvation, and the exhibition 
of motives to comply with them are a delusive 
mockery," that " the true and only reason why 
sinners are lost, is not, that they do not act, but 
that God does not," and that '•' in respect to any 
capacity for happiness from the objects of right 
affection, man as he is constituted by his Maker, 
is like a stone or corpse." 

On the subject of God's ability to prevent sin, 
and sanctify the hearts of men, the statements of 
Dr. Beecher are also entirely opposed to those 
which have come from the New Haven school. 
Just notice the following statement of Dr. Tay- 
lor : " How is it that God says, Isaiah v. 4, that 
he has done all that can be done to bring sinners 
to repentance, when he could do more if he 
would, and would do more, did he not, on the 
whole, prefer their continued sin to their repent- 
ance ? ' My child,' says a father, ' never steal ; 
never lie ; I have no pleasure at all that you 
should, compared with being honest and true. 
8* 



90 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

' But then, my child,' he proceeds, ' I greatly pre- 
fer, on the whole, that you should steal and lie, 
at least in nine cases out of ten ; for stealing 
and lying, in these instances, will be the best 
thing you can do ; and though I shall do every 
thing that can be done to secure your obedience 
to my law, yet I could do much more if I would ; 
and I would do it, if I did not, on the whole, 
prefer your stealing and lying to honesty and 
truth." ' Compare this with the following from 
Dr. Beecher ; 

" That God is able, by his direct and immedi- 
ate power to approach the mind in every faculty, 
and to touch all the springs of action and affec- 
tion, I have never denied or doubted. And that 
he is able, by the direct interposition of his pow- 
er, so to rectify the mind of man as disordered 
by the fall, as that the consequence would be the 
immediate, unperverted exercise of the will and 
affections in obedience, is just as evident as that 
God can create minds in such a condition that 
they will, in these respects, go right from the 
beginning. I have no sympathy for the opinion 
that it depends on sinners whether they be re- 
generated or not, in the day of his power — or 
that God does all he can, and leaves the event 
of submission or not, to rebel man. The passa- 
ges quoted to prove such an assertion are misun-* 
derstood and perverted, The texts, ' what could 
have been done more to my vineyard that I have 
not done in it,' (Isa, v. 4.) and ' he could not do 
many mighty works there because of their unbe- 
lief,' and other kindred passages do not teach 
that God is ever efficaciously resisted by any sin- 
ner whom he attempts to subdue, or that there 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 91 

is any sinner on earth so stubborn and obstinate 
that God could not reconcile him if it seemed 
good in his sight. The limitation is of God's 
unerring wisdom, and is the same as when 
it is said, he cannot deny himself, or cannot lie, 
or where God himself says, ' though Moses and 
Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not 
be towards this people.' " 

This, you will perceive, is in direct opposition 
io the views of Dr. Taylor. And not only so, 
Dr. Beecher has here advanced the very princi- 
ple which, according to Dr. Taylor, " leads to 
Universalism, to Infidelity, and to Atheism," 
" the principle which, in the hands of Voltaire, 
and other enemies of the gospel, has spread infi- 
delity and atheism to such a fearful extent 
throughout Europe," and which involves all the 
horrid blasphemies which he has charged upon 
Drs. Woods and Tyler. 

A large part of Dr. Beecher's book is adapted 
to make a favorable impression upon the minds 
of orthodox readers. On all the subjects of 
which he treats, except that of moral agency, his 
statements, so far as they go, will be regarded 
as generally sound. On this topic, however, 
(moral agency) he has advanced principles which 
lead inevitably to Arminian conclusions. And 
on some other topics, his statements do not con- 
tain a full view of his sentiments. On the doc- 
trine of regeneration, for instance, no one would 
conjecture from what he has published, " that 
he does not believe in the direct and immediate 
agency of the Holy Spirit in regeneration." 

Yet such is not his belief, unless he has quite 
recently altered his opinion. He maintains, as I 



92 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

happen to know from repeated conversations with 
him on the subject, that the Holy Spirit never 
operates directly on the heart in regeneration, 
(except perhaps in the case of infants, idiots, 
&>c.) but only through the medium of truth and 
motives — that the influence of the Spirit is a 
persuasive influence, analogous to the influence 
which one man exerts over the mind of another. 
This is what has been denominated the doctrine 
of " Divine moral suasion." It is the same doc- 
trine which was maintained by a certain popular 
preacher of the present day, when he said, 
" Were I as eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could 
convert sinners as well as He/' and the same 
doctrine which is taught by Mr. Finney, in his 
sermon on making a new heart, in which he says, 
" In renewing men, the Spirit employs means. 
He does not come and take right hold of the 
heart, and perform an operation upon it; but he 
presents motives ; he persuades by means of 
truth, and the heart is overcome. To change 
men's hearts requires only the presentation of 
truth by the Spirit of God. His influence dif- 
fers not at all from that of the preacher except 
in degree." This sermon Mr. Finney preached 
in Boston, at the time of which Dr. Beecher 
speaks when he says, " It will be long before I 
again hear so much truth with as little to object 
to, in the manner of its exhibition, in the same 
space of time." 

Most of Dr. Beecher's book, as I have already 
intimated, is adapted to make the impression that 
he does not adopt the peculiarities of the New 
Haven School. And many things which he has, 
at divers times, said to his intimate friends who 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 93 

he knew were opposed to these peculiarities, 
(such as Dr. Porter, Dr. Woods, Dr. Tyler, Mr. 
Nettleton, &c.) have been adapted to make the 
same impression on their minds. He has some- 
times spoken freely, and in terms of strong dis- 
approbation of Dr. Taylor's writings, and of the 
manner in which he had conducted the contro- 
versy. He has also made such statements in 
regard to his own sentiments, as to convince 
them that he could not adopt the New Haven 
opinions. 

But notwithstanding all this, truth obliges me 
to say, that, in my apprehension, Dr. Beecher 
is in a high degree responsible for the spread of 
these opinions. It is through his influence, 
more than that of any other man, that they have 
gained so much favor in the eyes of the commu- 
nity. He has been an apologist for them. He 
has had no sympathy with those who have been 
distressed on account of them ; but has uni- 
formly frowned on every expression of alarm. 
He has insisted that the New Haven divines are 
orthodox, and that their sentiments are fraught 
with no dangerous tendencies. He has express- 
ed it as his " full and deliberate belief," that 
these sentiments " will prevail and predominate 
both in New England and elsewhere." He has 
occasionally thrown out intimations " that the 
theology of New England is running down to 
natural inability, and old Calvinism — and wait- 
ing God's time, and formality, and Triangular- 
ism," — that " old Calvinism must go down," — 
that, " the system of Calvinism needs to be ex- 
amined and discussed by a new and original 
investigation of all the points," — and that the 



94 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

result will be, " the sifting out of false philoso- 
phy," and the burning up of " wood, hay, and 
stubble," enough of which he thinks there is even 
in New England, " if brought out and laid on 
one pile to make a great bonfire." Although I 
write " currente calamo," I am not writing at ran- 
dom. I state nothing of which I have not the 
proof in my possession. 

In the mean time, the New Haven divines and 
all their adherents, have considered Dr. Beecher 
as agreeing with them in sentiment, and siding 
with them in their controversies. They have 
not hesitated to make use of his name, in 
public and in private, in conversation, in letters, 
and through the press, to promote the prevalence 
of their views ; and so far as I have known, he 
has not been disposed to contradict their state- 
ments. He has seemed, at least, to be willing to 
have them understand that he did accord with 
them in their views and measures. 

Dr. Taylor has been in the habit of submit- 
ing his controversial articles to Dr. Beecher for 
inspection previous to their publication. This 
was the fact in regard to the Review of Dr. Ty- 
ler's remarks, published in the Christian Specta- 
tor, for September, 1832, some account of which 
I gave you in my seventh letter. It was true in 
regard to Dr. Taylor's communications for the 
Spirit of the Pilgrims, in his controversy with 
Dr. Tyler. In one instance, Dr. Beecher took 
so much liberty with a communication, that Dr. 
Taylor in a subsequent number had occasion to 
make the following remark : " Here I shall first 
advert to an error in phraseology which, though 
not my own, occurred in some instances, in my 



OF 1I£W HAVEN THEOLOGY. 95 

reply to Dr. Tyler's remarks. This arose from the 
insertion of a passage, while my reply was passing 
through the press by one of the conductors of the 
Spirit of the Pilgrims. For the liberty thus taken, 
I am not disposed to censure my friend, consider- 
ing our long intimacy, and the coincidence of our 
views on theological subjects, and the desire from 
which it sprung of giving an additional illustra- 
tion of my opinions.'"' 

That Dr. Beecher is the " friend," here referred 
to, was well understood, and you will perceive 
that Dr. Taylor here, in this public manner, 
claims " a coincidence of views/' with Dr. 
Beecher, "on theological subjects." This was 
published under Dr. Beecher's own eye, and suf- 
fered to pass without contradiction. All the 
young men who have come out from the New 
Haven School, and all others who have adopted 
the peculiar sentiments of that School have rep- 
resented Dr. Beecher as an advocate of these 
sentiments. It has been proclaimed by them 
through the length and breadth of the land ; and 
it is owing to their representations more than to 
those of any other persons, that the orthodoxy 
of Dr. Beecher has been so extensively suspected. 
Some of his intimate friends, particularly Mr. 
Nettleton, did for a long time feel authorised 
to contradict these representations. He did 
suppose, from statements which Dr. Beecher 
made to him, and from writings which he read to 
him, and which he talked of publishing, that he 
did not agree with Dr. Taylor, and that he 
intended he should so understand him. Accord- 
ingly, when he found at the South, reports in cir- 
culation that Dr. Beecher accorded in his doctri- 



96 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

nal views with the New Haven divines, he took the 
liberty to contradict them. Wherever he went he 
vindicated Dr. Beecher, and it was in consequence 
of his representations that Dr. Miller and Dr. 
Green were led to repose that confidence in Dr. 
Beecher which was expressed in their letters to 
him which he exhibited on his trial. But in 
1830, Dr. Beecher called Mr. Nettleton to an 
account for reporting that he did not agree with 
Dr. Taylor. Since that time, he has not felt at 
liberty to contradict the representations which 
the friends of the New Haven Divinity have been 
continually making. 

From what I have written, you will perceive 
that in the estimation of some of his brethren, 
the course of Dr. Beecher has not been, in all 
respects, so consistent as it might have been* 
What you experienced when you heard him 
preach two sermons during the session of the 
last General Assembly is a specimen of the ex- 
perience of some of his brethren for a course 
of years. Their hearts have been alternately 
rejoiced and pained. They have loved Dr. 
Beecher. They have often listened to his voice 
with intense delight. They have blessed God for 
the good accomplished through his instrumen- 
tality, and they have been grieved and distressed 
that his influence should be perverted to promote 
the prevalence of what they believe to be danger- 
ous error. 

For many years after his first settlement in 
New England, he enjoyed the entire confidence 
of his brethren. He, and Dr. Porter and Dr. 
Harvey, and Dr. Tyler, were located in neigh- 
boring parishes, and lived on terms of the great- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 9? 

est intimacy. He and Mr. Nettleton were true 
yokefellows in the cause of revivals. In those 
days, we heard from him no suspicions of a ten- 
dency in New England ministers to " hyper-Cal- 
vinism and antinomian fatality ;" and no intima- 
tions of the necessity of a reform in the system 
of New England orthodoxy. Those were days 
of peace and harmony, and brotherly love among 
the ministers of New England. But we have 
fallen on other times. That harmony of senti- 
ment which so long prevailed exists no longer* 
New doctrines have been broached, and are zeal- 
ously propagated ; and to what extent the defec- 
tion may be sufTered to go, is known only to Him 
who seeth the end from the beginning. But it is 
consoling to reflect that Zion's God reigneth, and 
that he is able to bring light out of darkness, 
and order out of confusion, and to overrule all 
the commotions of this sin-distracted world for 
the promotion of his own glory, and the greatest 
possible good. 

I am yours, very affectionately. 



9 



LETTER XI. 



March 20, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

You will naturally inquire to what extent does 
the new divinity prevail in New England? — in 
other words, how large a proportion of the New 
England ministers adopt the peculiar sentiments 
of the New Haven School ? On this point, I 
can only give you my opinion, as I have no data 
from which to make out an accurate calculation. 
Different individuals would doubtless give differ- 
ent answers to this question. The New Haven 
divines would probably tell you that their views 
prevail very extensively in New England ; that 
quite a large proportion of the ministers adopt 
them. I am satisfied, however, that their esti- 
mates are far from being correct. 

It appears from Dr. Porter's letter to Dr. 
Beecher, that when he informed him that one of 
his brethren was dissatisfied on hearing him 
preach a certain sermon, Dr. Beecher acknowl- 
edged that probably three fourths of his brethren 
would have had the same feelings in the same 
circumstances. 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 99 

In a letter to a friend, dated August 6, 1S32, 
Dr. Porter says : " Our orthodox community for 
near a century had been but little disturbed, till 
this new luminary appeared, and volunteered to 
shed darkness on the world. He wrote and talk- 
ed and talked and wrote ; and what has been the 
result I The great body of ministers said for a 
while, ' we do not know what he means.' He 
has been reputed sound in the faith, and all this 
vaunted originality, consisting of novelty and 
obscurity in diction, and paradoxical boldness, 
is at bottom rather bad taste, than bad theology. 
He complained of the obtuseness of readers that 
could not understand him ; — wrote again — and 
then again ; and then complained bitterly that so 
many misunderstood him. After a long time, a 
few men say, ■ Dr. Taylor is right, and Calvinism 
is wrong' — a few others, much fewer than he 
supposes, say, 'Dr. Taylor is right, and Calvin- 
ism is right too — he is a consistent Calvinist.' 
This latter number is not one tenth of the New 
England ministers, and not one hundredth of 
those that are thirty-five years old. The great 
body of ministers now say he is wrong — not al- 
together so, of course — but wrong on his own 
favorite points." 

Such was the language of Dr. Porter in 1832. 
Dr. Woods, in his eighth letter published in 1830, 
says : " I feel myself constrained to sav, that the 
theory which you adopt in distinction from the 
common theory, appears to me, generally, so far 
as I understand it, to be unscriptural and of dan- 
gerous tendency. And the more I examine it, 
the farther I am from being satisfied with it. 
And this is the case with the orthodox communi- 



100 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

ty, to an extent, as I have reason to think, far 
beyond your apprehension. Compared with the 
whole body of Congregational and Presbyterian 
ministers, there are very few who embrace your 
opinions." Whether these estimates are correct 
or not, I am confident that Dr. Taylor's peculiar- 
ities are adopted far less extensively than he is 
wont to imagine. Indeed, I have rarely met with 
a minister, excepting those young men who have 
been educated in his school, who is willing to 
express his unqualified approbation of Dr. Tay- 
lor's speculations. Many even of those who are 
apologists for these speculations, and who lend 
their influence to promote their prevalence, are 
unwilling to be considered Taylorites, and are 
very careful to tell you that they do not adopt all 
Dr. Taylor's opinions. Or if they do not object 
particularly to the doctrines of the New Haven 
School, they will tell you they do not like the 
spirit with which those doctrines are inculcated. 
I have just seen a letter written a little more than 
three years ago by a minister of some distinction 
in New England, who is considered by the New 
Haven divines as one of their warmest friends 
and adherents, in which he says : " I am frank to 
say, that I see some things connected with the 
theological department in Yale College which I 
cannot approve. I refer to the speculative cast 
of the system there taught, and to the g* eat 
prominence which is given to some points, which, 
to say the least, are of very little importance, 
and are deemed by many to be of bad tendency. 
I probably see less to fear in their system on the 
score of heresy than you and some others do. 
But I see much in the spirit and manner in which 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 101 

that system is inculcated, which I deeply regret, 
and which I should heartily rejoice to see any 
judicious measures adopted to correct. J; 

But a large proportion of the ministers of New 
England do not adopt any of the peculiar senti- 
ments of the New Haven School. Their views 
of doctrine accord with those inculcated in the 
writings of oar standard divines ; such as Ed- 
wards Bellamy, Dwight, &c. But although the 
great mass of the New England ministers are 
sound in the faith, and united in their views of 
Christian doctrine, and in the rejection of the 
New Haven errors ; — yet they entertain different 
opinions as to the manner in which these errors 
should be regarded and treated. There are 
those, (and the number is not small) who regard 
them as dangerous — as tending to sap the foun- 
dation of the evangelical system. They look 
upon their prevalence with distress and alarm, 
and feel it to be their duty to bear their testimo- 
ny against them. You have already seen from 
the several extracts which I have given you from 
Dr. Porter's letters, in what point of light he re- 
garded them. The following statement of a 
friend, will show what were his feelings near the 
close of his life. 

44 I called on Dr. Porter more frequently the 
last two months of his life, (I believe I may say 
the last three months,) than usual. There was 
something in his pale, consumptive face, and in 
his solemn interesting manner of conversing on 
the great truths of the gospel, and the errors 
which seemed coming in on the church, which 
were very impressive. When on these visits, I 
have heard him as many, at least, as three differ- 
9* 



102 



ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 



ent times, and I believe more than three, express 
his deep apprehension in regard to the sentiments 
of Dr. Taylor. Once he said, ( It would take a 
hundred years to do away the evils brought on 
the church by his speculations; that Dr. Taylor 
was taking a fearful responsibility on himself; 
that Edwards fought a great battle with the Ar- 
minians, and gained the victory, but now all was 
to be gone over again.' " 

Dr. Humphrey, in a letter written Nov. 4, 
1833, an extract from which was published in the 
Southern Religious Telegraph, says : " My opin- 
ion expressed freely and every where is, that the 
gentlemen there, (at New Haven) are building 
their system on philosophy, more than on the 
Bible ; that this philosophy is Arminian, and of 
course can never support a Calvinistic creed. 
The tendency of the scheme, I solemnly believe, 
is to bring in a flood of Arminianism, or rather 
perhaps, I ought to say Pelagianism upon our 
churches. Where this tendency will stop, I 
know not. If not arrested, I fear it may end in 
fundamental error." 

Dr. Woods in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Plum- 
mer, dated Feb. 8, 1838, says : " I believe what 
you say, that there is a perfect understanding 
among those in every part of our country who 
are opposed to Calvinism, and that they are act- 
ing in concert — that there is an alarming loose- 
ness among young preachers ; and that there is a 
fixed determination to maintain a party holding 
loose opinions — and that there must be a battle 
fought here and there and every where, (only let 
it not be fought with carnal weapons.) And I 
agree with you, that there must be a friendly and 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 103 

brotherly understanding among all who hold fast 
the great truths of the gospel, and that the love 
of the truth must bind them together, though 
they do not think exactly alike on minor points. 
I agree, too, that men of influence must lift up 
their voice, and that we ought to make known 
what were the views of distinguished men, who 
have had a high reputation, but who have gone 
to their rest, such as you mention. The fact is, 
that Dr. Porter, Mr. Evarts, and Dr. Cornelias, 
were most deeply alarmed and distressed with the 
loose speculations which have come from the 
New Haven School, and from Mr. Finney and 
others of that stamp. I know how they all felt, 
and what a full conviction they had that the no- 
tions which were peculiar to Dr. Taylor and Mr. 
Finney, would undermine the fair fabric of our 
evangelical churches, and spread a system far 
more unscriptural and pernicious than Wesleyan 
Methodism/ 5 Dr. Griffin, speaking of the New 
Haven sentiments, says : " I consider the honor 
of raising to spiritual life, a world dead in tres- 
passes and sins, as one of the brightest glories 
of the Godhead ; and I have been grieved at my 
heart to see this honor taken away. This has 
been the severest cut of all." 

Dr. Tyler in his strictures, published in 18*29, 
says : " I cannot but express my conviction, that 
he, (Dr. Taylor) has taken positions which, when 
followed into their legitimate consequences, will 
lead to the subversion of the doctrines of grace." 
And again : " Nothing but the fullest conviction 
of the dangerous tendency of these speculations, 
and the necessity of some counteracting influ- 



104 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

ence, could have induced the writer to appear in 
this manner before the public." 

Mr. Nettleton, in a communication written by 
him in Feb. 1834, after having read an article in 
the Christian Spectator, entitled, " What is the 
real difference between the New Haven divines 
and those who oppose them?" shows that the 
positions laid down in that article tend to subvert 
the scriptural doctrine of regeneration, and ob- 
serves : " On the whole, their views of depravity, 
of regeneration, and of the mode of preaching 
to sinners, I think, cannot fail of doing very 
great mischief. This exhibition overlooks the 
most alarming features of human depravity, and 
the very essence of experimental religion. It is 
directly calculated to prevent sinners from com- 
ing under conviction of sin, and to make them 
think well of themselves while in an unregene- 
rated state. It flatters others with the delusion, 
that they may give their hearts to God, or that 
they have already done it, while their propensi- 
ty to sin remains in all its strength." " I know 
that converts may be made by hundreds and by 
thousands on these principles with perfect ease, 
for so it has been in former times among different 
sects in New England, as I have had full oppor- 
tunity to know. But piety never did and never 
will descend far in the line of these sentiments. 
Were I to preach the sentiments contained in 
that article, I do solemnly believe that I should 
be the means of healing the hurt of awakened 
sinners slightly, and be guilty of crying peace, 
peace, when there is no peace, and of throwing 
the whole weight of my ministerial influence on 
the side of human rebellion against God," 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 105 

These extracts will give you a specimen of the 
views and feelings which are entertained by a 
large number of the ministers of New England. 
Such, however, are not the feelings of all who 
do not adopt the peculiarites of the New Haven 
School. There are some who, through love of 
peace and dread of controversy, persuade them- 
selves that the best way to remedy the evil is to 
let it alone. Others, not having read much of 
the discussions which have been published, and 
of course having only a vague and indefinite 
knowledge of the points in controversy, natter 
themselves that the difference is not so great as 
many have supposed — while others, after having 
read some of Dr. Taylor's writings, and found 
themselves unable to understand them, have come 
to the conclusion that nobody can understand 
him, and that all the diftculty originates in amis- 
understanding. On this point I would just ob- 
serve, that if Dr. Taylor cannot write so that the 
most distinguished theologians in the land, such 
men as Dr. Porter, Dr. Woods, Dr. Griffin, Dr. 
Humphrey, the Princeton Professors, &c. can 
understand him, what kind of a teacher of the- 
ology must he be ? Or to adopt the language of 
Dr. Porter to Dr. Beecher, " If he canuot make 
clear heads combined with honest hearts, com- 
prehend his meaning, what sort of a system must 
his be to enlighten and save the world ?' ; 

Still, however, the New Haven sentiments do 
prevail to a considerable extent. Those who 
have been zealously engaged in propagating them, 
have enjoyed many advantages for the prosecution 
of their plans, and they have not labored with- 
out some success. 



106 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

And what, you will ask, have been the practi- 
cal results, so far as they have been developed ? 
The answer to this inquiry, in the opinion of 
many, at least, is well expressed by a distinguish- 
ed and excellent minister in Connecticut, in a 
letter written Oct. 1, 1833. He says: il The 
New Haven theology lowers, and lowers exceed-* 
ingly the standard of our doctrines, of our revi- 
vals, and of real piety in and out of the State. 
It turns every good thing downward, and gives 
a strong descending impetus." Where these 
sentiments prevail, the great doctrines of the gos- 
pel are not preached as they formerly were. Lax 
views of doctrine are creeping into the churches, 
and the character of revivals is evidently deteri- 
orating. The religious excitements which have 
taken place where the new divinity is preached, 
differ wudely from the revivals which took place 
eighteen, twenty, and twenty-five years ago. 
Those revivals were remarkably pure, as time 
has abundantly shown. They were characteri- 
zed by deep and awful solemnity, by powerful con- 
victions of sin, and by a remarkable exhibition 
of the fruits of the Spirit. The converts were 
meek, humble, docile, and but few apostacies oc- 
curred among them. But many of the religious 
excitements of the present day are very transient, 
and although a great number of conversions is 
sometimes reported, yet it not unfrequently hap- 
pens that, within a short period, very few of them 
are to be found. Many melancholy facts might 
be given on this subject. I will mention one or 
two. A year or two since, I was conversing with 
a pious layman who resides in a town where, 
eighteen months before, there had been said to 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY.- 107 

be a very powerful and extensive revival. I en- 
quired of him the state of religion. He said it 
was very low. But I understand you had a very 
remarkable revival of religion in your town win- 
ter before last. " Yes/ 5 said he, " but converts 
do not seem to wear as they did formerly." 
Have not the subjects of that revival worn well ? 
" Not at all," he replied. Great numbers, I un- 
derstood, were supposed to be converted, how 
many of them have been added to the church ? 
11 Not more than six or seven, and some of those 
do not adorn their profession." 

In another town there was a religious excite- 
ment in 1833, where about forty youth were sup- 
posed to be converted. One year afterwards, I 
was informed that not one of them had made a 
profession of religion, or at that time gave any 
decisive evidence of piety. These are specimens 
of many facts which have occurred within a few 
years past in New England ; and not only where 
those wandering stars, Mr. Foote and Mr. Burch- 
ard, have been, but under the ministrations of 
settled pastors. It was not so under the labors 
of brother Nettleton ; nor under the labors of 
those New England pastors, through whose in- 
strumentality such accessions were made to the 
churches at the commencement of the present 
century. 

I am yours, very affectionately. 



LETTER XII 



March 21, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

As great pains have been taken to make the 
impression that the New Haven divinity is New 
England divinity, and in this way to awaken jeal- 
ousy and prejudice in the Presbyterian Church 
against the ministers and churches of New Eng- 
land generally, I have thought it might be useful 
to devote a few letters to the object of correcting 
this impression. I have already remarked that 
the great body of New England ministers ac- 
cord in sentiment with our standard theological 
writers, such as Edwards, Bellamy, Hopkins, 
Dwight, Smalley, Strong, &c. What I now pro- 
pose to show is, that the New Haven divines have 
departed from the views maintained by these wri- 
ters. Before I proceed however, to adduce di- 
rect proof of this allegation, I will just glance at 
the opinions which are entertained of their spec- 
ulations by different classes of the community. 
Their writings have been extensively read, not 
only by Calvinists, but by professed Arminians 
and Unitarians. And how are they regarded by 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 109 

these different classes of individuals ? Are they 
regarded as according with the writings of those 
who have heretofore been considered as Calvin- 
ists ? What is the opinion of those who are de- 
nominated Old School divines in the Presbyte- 
rian church ? Is there an individual in this nu- 
merous class of ministers, who does not regard 
the New Haven divines as having departed wide- 
ly from the Cakinistic system? What is the 
opinion of such men as Dr. Richards, Dr. Spring, 
Dr, Woodbridge, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Hilyer, and 
many others in the Presbyterian Church, who, as 
Dr. Miller says, " still possess no small share of 
New England feelings V' Do they regard the 
New Haven divines as consistent Calvinists ? On 
the contrary, do they not think as unfavorably of 
their speculations as any in your church ? And 
how are these speculations regarded by the most 
distinguished theologians of New England 1 
What were the views entertained of them by 
those venerable servants of God now at rest, Dr. 
Hyde, Dr. Porter, Mr. Evarts, and Dr. Corne- 
lius? Dr. Hyde, in a letter dated April 13, 1830, 
said, " I notice with much trembling the pro- 
gress of error in this land, and among the 
churches of New England. The New Haven 
scheme of theology is a broad step-stone to Ar- 
minianisni. You may possibly live to have your 
attachment to the Lord Jesus Christ put to a 
severe test. The doctrines of sovereign grace 
are more and more discarded." What were the 
views and feelings of Dr. Porter, Mr. Evarts and 
Dr. Cornelius, is sufficiently apparent from ex- 
tracts inserted in my previous letters. And what 
are the opinions of such living men as Dn Grif- 
10 



110 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

fin, Dr. Church, Dr. Woods, Dr. Humphrey, &c, 
" My opinion/' says Dr. Humphrey, " expressed 
freely, and everywhere, is, that the gentlemen 
there, (at New Haven) are building their system 
on philosophy more than on the Bible ; that this 
philosophy is Arminian, and can never support 
a Calvinistic creed. My solemn belief is, that 
the tendency of the scheme is to bring in a flood 
of Arminianism, or rather, perhaps I ought to 
say Pelagianism upon our churches." Dr. 
Humphrey has here expressed the ' opinion' and 
solemn belief of very many of the most discrimi- 
nating and judicious ministers of New England. 
And what do professed Arminians think of these 
speculations ? The Rev. Dr. Fiske, President 
of the Wesleyan University, in his reply to Pro- 
fessor Fitch's Review of his sermon on Predesti- 
nation, says, "Ifl understand the reviewer, he is 
in principle an Arminian. The reviewer's whole 
ground of defence is solely this Arminian expla- 
nation of the doctrine of predestination. He 
acknowledges, nay, boldly asserts, in a strain of 
rugged controversy with his brethren who may 
differ from this view of the subject, that there is 
no other explanation by which the arguments of 
the sermon can be avoided ; that is, as I under- 
stand it, the only way to avoid the arguments 
against the doctrine of Calvinian predestination, 
is to give it up and assume the Arminian senti- 
ment. I cannot approve of the aeviewer's use 
«of terms, though to my understanding he has 
evidently given^the doctrine of predestination not 
merely a new dress, but a new character, yet he 
more than intimates that it is the old doctrine, 
with only a new method of explanation. And 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. Ill 

so confident is the reviewer, that he still believes 
in the fact of predestination in the old Calvinis- 
tic sense, that in stating his sentiments on this 
subject, he uses the same forms of expression 
which Calvinists have used when their meaning 
was 'as distant from his as the two poles from 
each other. I feel safer in understanding the 
reviewer in an Arminian sense, because he and 
some others take it very ill of me that I have 
represented them as Calvinists. By God's fore- 
ordaining whatever comes to pass, he only means 
that God foresaw that sin would certainly take 
place, and predetermined that he would not hin- 
der it, either by refraining from creating moral 
agents, or by throwing a restraint upon them 
that would destroy their free agency ; in short, 
that he would submit to it as an evil unavoidably 
incident to the best possible system, after doing 
all that he wisely could do to prevent it. This 
is foreordaining sin ! that is, predetermining 
that it should be ! I cannot but express my 
deepest regret that a gentleman of the review- 
er's standing and learning should lend his aid, 
and give his sanction to such a perversion of lan- 
guage, to such a confusion of tongues. Do the 
words predestinate, foreordain, decree, mean in 
common language, or in their radical and criti- 
cal definition, nothing more than to permit, not 
absolutely to hinder — to submit to as an unavoid- 
able but offensive evil ? The reviewer certainly 
will not pretend to this. The use of these terms 
by those who believe as I understand the review- 
er to believe, is the more unjustifiable, because 
they are used by most Calvinistic authors in a 
different sense. Why then should the reviewer, 



112 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

believing as be does, continue to use them in the 
symbols of his faith? Different persons might 
give different answers to such a question. For 
one, I would prefer he should answer it himself. 
His mode of explanation turns the doctrine into 
Arminianism. But the sermon was never writ- 
ten to oppose those who hold the decrees of God 
in an Arminian sense. Why then, does the 
reviewer complain of the sermon? It seems 
that Calvinism, in its proper character is as ob^ 
noxious to the reviewer as to the author of the 
sermon. If it is safer to attack Calvinism in 
this indirect way, I will not object. But I cannot 
see that it would be safer. An open, bold front, 
always ends best. As I understand the reviewer^ 
from the days of John Calvin down to the pres-^ 
ent hour, there is, on this point, between the 
great body of Calvinists and himself, almost no 
likeness except in the use of words. Theirs is 
one doctrine, his another. Why then, does he 
hail from that party, and hoist their signals, and 
then, after seeming to get the victory by espous- 
ing the very cause of the assailed, encourage the 
Calvinists to triumph, as if their cause had been 
successful V 3 

Dr. Griffin, after quoting the foregoing passa- 
ges in his treatise on divine efficiency, makes the 
following observation : " These remarks of the 
President of the Wesleyan University of Con- 
necticut, appear to me to be candid and judi- 
cious, and go far towards exposing the unhappy 
incongruity between the language and sentiments 
of this Review." 

And what opinion do the Unitarians entertain 
of the New Haven speculations ? If I had at 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 113 

command a file of the Christian Register, (a 
Unitarian paper printed in Boston,) for the last 
six or seven years, I could turn to numerous pas- 
sages in which they have exulted in the progress 
of liberal sentiments at New Haven. They have 
often quoted with high commendation the wri- 
tings of Dr. Taylor, and have affirmed again and 
again, that the New Haven divines have given up 
the most objectionable .parts of the Calvinistic 
system. The following passages are from the 
"Last Thoughts" of Noah Worcester, a Unita- 
rian clergyman in Massachusetts. The book 
was published in 1833. 

" In former days, the Calvinistic creed of hu- 
man depravity affirmed the corruption of man's 
whole nature, as the consequence of Adam's sin." 

This theory was modified in some important 
respects by the Hopkinsians of New England, 
by whose theory the corruption was limited to 
the heart or will of man, leaving the mental fac- 
ulties unimpaired. Still, it was admitted that 
the posterity of Adam are born with a nature or 
disposition wholly sinful. A still further modifi- 
cation has been advanced and ably supported by 
Dr. Taylor of New Haven and his associates. 
To state the hypothesis in authorized language, 
I shall take my extracts from a " Review of Tay- 
lor and Harvey," which appeared in the Chris- 
tian Spectator, for June, 18*29. After quoting 
two paragraphs, he proceeds, " In the first para- 
graph I see nothing objectionable ; and I rejoice 
that such views of human nature have been pro- 
posed and are acquiring belief. If I have not 
misunderstood these writers, the New Haven the- 
ory asserts that sin is a voluntary transgression ot 
10* 



114 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

a known law, and that as infants are incapable 
of moral agency, they are incapable of sin ; and 
that there is no such thing as sinful nature, ante- 
cedent to sinful volition, or- moral action. They 
strongly assert that nature is not sinful. Thus 
far I acquiesce. " " Within a few years Dr. Tay- 
lor, of New Haven, with his associates, including 
the Christian Spectator, have done much to di- 
minish the reputation of what has been regarded 
as the Orthodox and Calvinistic views on this sub- 
ject." (original sin.) 

In regard to the divine permission of sin, the 
writer adopts the views of the New Haven 
divines, and speaks in terms of high commenda- 
tion of their reasoning on this subject. He 
says, " The New Haven writers have contended 
for the hypothesis that sin is an evil incident to 
the best plan of government." 

Now here is a problem to be solved. If the 
New Haven divines are consistent Calvinists, and 
if they do agree substantially with the standard 
orthodox writers of New England, how has it 
come to pass that they have been so egregriously 
misunderstood? And not by a few individuals 
merely, but by vast multitudes; not only by per- 
sons of one particular class, embracing similar 
sentiments, but by persons of different classes, 
and embracing widely different sentiments ? 

Besides, if there is no difference, or no mate- 
rial difference between them and the orthodox 
generally, what are we to understand by the great 
improvements which they are said to have made 
in theological science ? That they have made 
such improvements is not only a matter of con- 
stant exultation by their friends and adherents, 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGV. 115 

but is more than intimated by themselves. In the 
Christian Spectator for September, 1833, they 
say, " But greatly as our views on this subject, 
(the influences of the Spirit,) and some others, 
have been misrepresented, we are happy to find 
that they are beginning to be extensively under- 
stood and appreciated. We know of very few, 
who are now inclined to ask, ' can there be no 
other sin than that which consists in voluntary 
transgression of known law?' — and the number 
is far less than formerly of those who hold that 
regeneration is so exclusively the work of the 
Spirit that the subject of it has, and can have 
no voluntary agency in it. There has of late 
been a great improvement in the doctrinal views 
of vast numbers, in relation to these and a few 
other points which we esteem of high impor- 
tance. And if the humble labors of the Christ- 
ian Spectator have, in any degree, contributed to 
this desirable result, ( we therein rejoice, yea and 
will rejoice.' " 

It is worthy of remark, that they here speak 
of the points respecting which they and their 
brethren differ, and in regard to which they sup- 
pose " a great improvement" has been made, not 
as matters of little consequence, Dut as points of 
11 high importance." 

There has been a very great inconsistency in 
the advocates of the new divinity in relation to 
this matter. Sometimes they give us startling 
and even shocking representations of the ten- 
dency of the views commonly entertained by the 
orthodox. They speak of them as tending to 
" the very worst of heresies," and involving the 
most horrid blasphemies. At other times, they 



116 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

insist that they and their opponents are substan- 
tially agreed — that all the difference relates to 
minor parts, and philosophical theories, which do 
not affect the fundamentals of Christianity. 
Much indeed has been said about the philosophy 
of religion, and great stress has been laid on the 
distinction between the doctrines of religion and 
the philosophy of the doctrines. It is said that 
persons may agree in their belief of the doc- 
trines or great facts of Christianity, and still dif- 
fer in their philosophy. Where this is the case, 
it is contended that the difference cannot be fun- 
damental or of great importance. 

If I understand those who make this distinc- 
tion, they mean by the philosophy of the doc- 
trines, the mode of explaining the doctrines. 
The principle then contended for is this. Those 
who agree in admitting the doctrines or facts of 
the Bible are substantially agreed, although they 
may differ widely in their mode of explaining 
those facts. 

Let us test this principle. The apostle says, 
"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all 
acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the 
world to save sinners." And this fact is admit- 
ted to be true by persons who entertain widely 
different opinions of the plan of salvation. One 
maintains that Christ came to save men by teach- 
ing them the will of God, and setting an exam- 
ple for them to imitate. Another, that he came 
to suffer and die an atoning sacrifice, and in this 
way to honor the law, and render it consistent 
for God to pardon those who repent and believe. 
Another, that he came to secure, and actually 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 1 IT 

will secure the salvation of all men. Are all 
these individuals substantially agreed? 

Again. Our Saviour said, " Except a man be 
born again he cannnot see the kingdom of God." 
But one man who admits the doctrine of the new 
birth to be true, explains it to mean water bap- 
tism. Another, conversion from the Jewish or 
Gentile religion to the belief and profession of 
Christianity. Another, a gradual change of char- 
acter. Another, a mere change of purpose. 
And another, a radical change of heart by the 
power of the Holy Ghost. Are all these individ- 
uals substantially agreed ! 

Again. The scriptures teach the doctrine of 
justification by faith. But one man understands 
by faith a mere speculative belief of the truth. 
Another, that Christ died for him in particular. 
Another, a cordial reception of the truth as it is 
in Jesus. Are all these individuals substantially 
agreed ? 

This illustration might be pursued to any ex- 
tent. But enough has been said to show the fal- 
lacy of the principle in question, and to show, 
moreover that if admitted to be true, it will 
sweep away all distinction between true and false 
religion. According to this distinction, all the 
difference between Calvinists, Pelagians, Armini- 
ans, and Unitarians, and even Universal ists. res- 
pects only the philosophy of religion. They all 
admit the a ts stated in the Bible, but they differ 
in their explanation of these facts. And is the 
principle to be maintained, that if different indi- 
viduals express their belief ill the same terms, it 
is no matter how much they may differ in their 
explanation of those terms? Does a man's faith 



118 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 

depend on the language in which it is expressed, 
or in the sense in which he uses that language ? 

Dr. Porter, in a letter written x4ugust 6, 1832, 
says, " On the late hobby distinction between 
doctrines and the theory or philosophy of relig- 
ion, I could write a sheet or two. 1 said to 
brother Beecher, give me that door, and I will 
bring all the churches of Boston to meet on one 
floor, as orthodox. Try the principle on the trin- 
ity, and all that is essential to the truth is easily 
set aside under the head of philosophy, or theory. 
Worse yet as to the atonement, regeneration, 
&,c. Noah Worcester, in the Christian Regis- 
ter, three or four weeks ago, followed up the 
principle capitally in behalf of the Unitarians." 

Much reproach has been cast upon the ortho- 
dox for disparaging philosophy in matters of 
religion. But it is not true that they disparage 
it when kept within its proper limits, and directed 
to its proper ends. That to which they object is 
setting up reason above revelation, forming philo- 
sophical theories, independently of revelation, 
respecting the powers and susceptibilities of 
man, the principles of moral agency and moral 
government, and then explaining the Bible so as 
to make it conform to their theories. This is, and 
ever has been, the fruitful source of error in re- 
ligion. True philosophy bows with humble rev- 
erence to the decisions of revelation. She is 
modest in her pretensions, and like Mary, sits at 
the Saviour's feet, that she may learn of him who 
is meek and lowly in heart. 

Yours affectionately. 



LETTER XIII. 



March 21, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

Dr. Porter, in one of his letters written in 
1830, says, " I am completely non-plussed tosee 
what Dr. Taylor would be at. He began writing 
avowedly to correct what he thought common 
errors of our theologians ; and next he supports 
his own views by quoting these theologians as 
concurring in sentiment with himself." This 
inconsistency of the New Haven divines has 
often been noticed, and remarked upon with 
astonishment. Notwithstanding the claims set 
up by themselves, and their adherents to the 
merits of having made " great improvements" 
in the science of theology ; yet when they are 
charged with having departed from the establish- 
ed orthodoxy of New England, they repel this 
charge by insisting that they do not differ from 
Edwards, Bellamy, Dwight, Strong, &x. and 
that, too, on the very points respecting which 
they profess to have made such " great improve- 
ment." 

Without dwelling on this inconsistency, I pro- 



120 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

pose to show, by a few brief quotations, how ut- 
terly groundless is this claim. 

The first topic to which I would direct your 
attention is the government of God. 

On this point, the New Haven divines have 
maintained the following positions, viz : " That 
God has not a complete control over the moral 
universe. That moral agents can do wrong un- 
der every possible influence to prevent it. That 
God prefers, all things considered, that all his 
creatures should be holy and happy, and that he 
does all in his power to render them so. That 
the existence of sin is not, on the whole, for the 
best. That sin exists, because God cannot pre* 
vent it in a moral system. And that the bless- 
edness of God is actually impaired by the diso^ 
bedience of his creatures/ 5 

These positions are clearly maintained in the 
following passages, and many others that might 
be cited. 

" God not only prefers, on the whole, that his 
creatures should forever perform their duties, 
rather than neglect them, but proposes on his 
part to do all in his power to promote this very 
object in his kingdom. — Christian Spectator, 
1832, p. 660. 

" It will not be denied, that free moral agents 
can do wrong under every possible influence to 
prevent it. The possibility of a contradiction^ 
in supposing them to be prevented from doing 
wrong is, therefore, demonstrably certain. Free 
moral agents can do wrong under all possible 
preventing influence." — Ch. Spec. 1830, p. 563. 

" But this possibility that moral agents will 
sin, remains (suppose what else you will) so long 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 121 

as moral agency remains; and how can it be 
proved that a thing will not be, when for aught 
that appears it may be? When, in view of all 
the facts and evidence in the case, it remains 
true that it may be, what evidence or proof can 
exist that it will not be? — Ch. Spec. 1830, p. 
553. 

M We know that a moral system necessarily 
implies the existence of free agents, with the 
power to act in despite of all opposing power, 
This fact sets human reason at defiance, in every 
attempt to prove that some of these agents will 
not use that power and actually sin." — Ch. Spec, 
1831, p. 617. 

" It is groundless assumption that God could 
have prevented all sin, or at least, the present 
degree of sin in a moral system. If holiness in 
a moral system be preferable to sin in its stead, 
why did not a benevolent God, were it possible 
to him, prevent all sin, and secure the prevalence 
of universal holiness ? Would not a moral uni- 
verse of perfect holiness, and of course perfect 
happiness, be happier and better than one com- 
prising sin and its miseries ? And must not in- 
finite benevolence accomplish all the good it can ? 
Would not a benevolent God, then, had it been 
possible to him in the nature of things, have se- 
cured the existence of universal holiness in his 
moral kingdom. " — Dr. Taylor s Concio, p. 28. 

Now I am bold to affirm that these positions 
have never been maintained by any of the ortho- 
dox writers of New England, nor by any divines 
claiming to be Calvinistic, since the Refomation. 
The universal sentiment of New England Cal- 

11 



122 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

vinists, in relation to this subject, may be learn- 
ed from the following extracts : 

President Edwards. " Objectors may say, 
God cannot always prevent men's sins, unless he 
act contrary to the free nature of the subject, or 
without destroying men's liberty. But will they 
deny that an omnipotent and infinitely wise God 
could possibly invent and set before men such 
strong motives to be obedient, and have kept be- 
fore them in such a manner, as should have in- 
fluenced all mankind to continue in their obedi- 
ence, as the elect engels have done, without de- 
stroying their liberty ?" — Decrees and Election, 
Seel 19. 

" Sin may be an evil thing, and yet that there 
should be such a disposal and permission that it 
should come to pass may be a good thing. — Trea- 
tise on the Will, p. 339. 

" God does not will sin as sin, or for the sake 
of any evil; though it be his pleasure so to order 
things, that He permitting, sin will come to pass ; 
for the sake of the great good that by his disposal 
shall be the consequence." — Id. p. 314. 

Dr. Bellamy. " Others, to solve the difficul- 
ties, have asserted that it was not in the power 
of God to prevent the fall of free agents, with- 
out destroying their free agency, and turning 
them into intelligent machines, incapable of vir- 
tue as well as of vice. But it is enough for us, 
to confute this hypothesis, that it is contrary to 
plain scripture representations, which teach us 
that the man, Christ Jesus, our second Adam, 
was a free agent, capable of the highest virtue, 
and yet in a confirmed state, so that he could 
not sin ; as are also the saints and angels now 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 123 

in heaven. From whence, it appears that it was 
in God's power to have confirmed all intelligen- 
ces at first ; and left them moral agents notwith- 
standing." — Works, Vol. L p. 50. 

" We agree, that if God had pleased, he could 
have hindered the existence of sin, and caused 
misery to be forever unknown in his dominions, 
with as much ease as to have suffered things to 
take their present course." — Id. p. 126. 

In the following passages, he quotes from his 
antagonist, and answers the very objection which 
the New Haven divines have so often urged on 
this subject. The objector says : " For if once 
I should believe that it was wisest and best in 
God to permit sin, most for his glory and the 
good of his system, I should feel myself under a 
necessity to look upon sin as being, in its own 
nature, a good thing, for the glory of God and the 
good of the system ; and that God delights in it 
as such. And that, therefore, instead of hating 
sin, mourning for it in ourselves, lamenting it in 
others, we ought rather to esteem it as really a 
good and virtuous thing, and as such, to rejoice 
in it, and even to keep an everlasting jubilee in 
remembrance of satan's revolt, and Adam's fall ; 
events so infinitely glorious ! Absurdities so 
shocking that I never can believe them." To 
this, Dr. Bellamy replies : " And absurdities, let 
me tell you, if you did but understand the scheme 
you are opposing, you would know are, so far 
from following from it, that they are absolutely 
inconsistent with it. . For the doctrine of the 
wisdom of God, in the permission of sin, sup- 
poses sin in itself, and in all its natural tenden- 
oies, to be infinitely evil, infinitely contrary to the 



124 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

honor of God and good of the system. For 
herein consists the wisdom of God in the affair, 
not in bringing good out of good, but in bring- 
ing infinite good out of infinite evil, and never 
suffering one sin to. happen in all his dominions, 
but which, notwithstanding its infinitely evil na- 
ture and tendency, infinite wisdom can and will 
overrule to great good, on the whole." — Id. p. 
145. 

" Now, since it is a plain fact, that sin and 
misery do take place in the system, methinks 
that every one who is a friend to God and the 
system, should rejoice with all his heart to hear, 
that the seed of the woman will bruise the ser- 
pent's head, bring glory to God, and good to the 
system, out of all the evil that ever has taken 
place, or ever will ; (and the more good the bet- 
ter ;) and so completely disappoint the devil." — 
Id. p. 171. 

Dr. Hopkins. " Moral evil is, in its own na- 
ture and tendency, most odious, hurtful, and 
undesirable ; but in the hands of Omnipotence, 
infinite wisdom, and goodness, it may be intro- 
duced into the most perfect plan and system, and 
so disposed and counteracted in its nature and 
tendency, as to be a necessary part of it, in order 
to render it most complete and desirable." — Sys- 
tem. Vol. 1. p. 114. 

Dr. Dwight. " That God could not prevent 
the existence of sin, cannot be maintained. He 
has prevented it in the angels who kept their first 
estate. He prevented it in the person of Christ, 
who, in his human nature knew no sin. He has 
promised that he will prevent it, and he will 
therefore prevent it in the spirits of just men 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 125 

made perfect in the heavens. Should it be said, 
that these beings, by their own voluntary agency, 
and without any interference or influence on the 
part of God, continue in a state of holiness ; this 
supposition affects not the point at all ; for God 
plainly could have created every moral agent with 
exactly the same attributes, and placed him in 
exactly the same circumstances, with those sev- 
eral beings who persist in holiness. Whatever 
we suppose to be the means by which they are 
preserved from sin, those very means he certainly 
could have used, to prevent, in the same effectu- 
al manner, all others. " — System of Theology Vol. 
L pp. 244, 245. 

" It will not be denied, that God is both able 
and disposed to plan a perfect system of good. 
It follows, therefore, that he certainly has planned 
such a system. What accords not with his pleas- 
ure, upon the whole, accords not with this sys- 
tem; this being the thing which is agreeable to 
his pleasure ; but must be defective or superflu- 
ous, out of place or out of time, aside from, or 
contrary to the perfection of the system. Con- 
sequently, if the actions of voluntary beings be 
not, upon the whole, accordant with the pleasure 
of God, he was not only unassured of the accom- 
plishment of the end, which he proposed in cre- 
ating and governing the universe ; but he enter- 
ed upon this great work without knowing that it 
would be accomplished ; and was originally cer- 
tain that the perfect good which he proposed, 
would never exist. — Id. p. 2^9. 

Dr. Strong. " Human incapacity to bring 
the greatest good out of much evil — much sin, 
iand much misery, is no argument that an infinite 
11* 



126 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

God cannot do it." — Benevolence and Misery, p. 
15. 

" We ought to have such confidence in the 
wisdom and goodness of God, when he tells us 
that creatures shall be always miserable under 
punishment, as to believe, that the eternal hap- 
piness of every creature, and the greatest happi- 
ness of the whole, are incompatible, and cannot 
come together into that plan or scheme of exis- 
tence and government, which are the best possi- 
ble.— Id. p. 120. 

Christian Spectator. " Now it is possible 
that many things, which in themselves are rights 
would not be for the best, on the whole ; and on 
the other hand, that many things are, on the 
whole, for the best, which in themselves are 
wrong. I say this is possible — nay, it is certain. 
The wars and bloodshed, the despotism and bon- 
dage, the subtlety and dishonesty, the folly and 
sin which overspread the earth, though in them- 
selves wrong, are, on the whole, for the best." — 
Vol 1. p. 447. 

Such were the views inculcated by the Chris- 
tian Spectator in 1819. How different from the 
views inculcated in the same work in 1832. 

Mr. Day. (Father of President Day of Yale 
College, a distinguished New England divine.) 
I have before me a sermon of his preached at 
Bethlehem in 1774, before the Association of 
Ministers of Litchfield county, and published at 
their request. The object of this sermon was to 
refute the very hypothesis which has, of late, 
been revived and strenuously maintained by the 
New Haven divines. The title of the sermon is 
"The ability of God to restrain sin, in away con- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 127 

sistent with the liberty of the creature." The 
following extracts will show not only what were 
his views, but what were the views of the Asso- 
ciation, and of Calvinistic ministers generally, 
in New England at that period. 

" Is not the parent of the universe kind and 
benevolent? Can he overrule all things for the 
best, and will he not? Can he restrain the wrath 
of man, and will he not therefore do it, whenever 
it would praise him ? Reason and scripture join 
to demonstrate that he will. If God does, there- 
fore, in every instance, restrain sin, so far as it 
would be for the best, it is certain that whatever 
moral evil is in the universe, it shall somehow or 
other subserve the noblest and best purposes." — 
Preface, p. 4. 

" What I propose in the ensuing discourse is, 
to establish God's absolute dominion over the 
hearts of men ; to evince his entire ability to 
govern and control the human heart, so, that to 
whatever enormous height, the turbulent passions 
and violent corruptions may arise, yet they are 
perfectly limited and curbed at the divine pleas- 
ure ; so that it may without propriety be said 
with respect thereto, as is said concerning the 
boisterous ocean — " Hitherto shall thou come, 
but no farther, and here shall thy proud waves 
be stayed." It would be a lamentable censider- 
ation, indeed, if the horrid outrage and madness 
of men was irresistible by Omnipotence itself; 
and if the all-wise Governor and Superintendent 
of the universe, could not restrain and suppress 
the perverse rage of men, agreeably to his holy 
will. — p. 5. 

" If it is not in the power of God to keep a 



128 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

free agent from sinning, with what propriety can 
he be directed to pray to God for restraining 
grace, or that he may be preserved from sin?" — 
p. 14. 

" If we suppose the consequence of God ; s 
creating and upholding free agents, would be, 
that they might act entirely inconsistently with 
the divine purpose ; that in the use of their free- 
dom, God could not keep them in those bounds, 
which should eventually turn most for his glory, 
and the greatest good of intelligent beings ; but 
in direct opposition to the purpose of God, they 
should act in such a manner, as to entirely over- 
throw and subvert all the good which God pro- 
posed in the creation of intelligent beings, how 
shocking must the thought be ! Upon this sup- 
position, all the noble and excellent ends which 
God proposed in the creation of the universe, 
might be frustrated ; for it not being in the pow- 
er of God to restrain sin, and govern free agents 
according to his will, they might in every respect 
cross the will of God, and defeat every valuable 
end the divine Being proposed in their forma- 
tion." "It is very easy to perceive, that if it is 
not in the power of God to control the hearts of 
free agents, and restrain them from sin, accord- 
ing to his pleasure, dreadful consequences may 
ensue. The will of God may be crossed — the 
good he aimed at in the creation be prevented — 
irreparable disorders introduced. The friends 
of virtue would be filled with lamentation. The 
enemies of God and all good, would triumph 
and exult. Is it not easy to see that this might 
have been the terrible consequence, if it was not 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 129 

absolutely in the power of God to govern free 
agents ?"— pp. 24, 25. 

" We infer, that as God is able to restrain sin 
among the apostate, rebellious, children of men, 
who are under the dominion of powerful vicious 
habits ; so we can much more easily conceive, 
that he was able to have prevented sin in beings 
made originally holy." — p. 27. 

The theory of the New Haven divines, in re- 
lation to this subject, is the very theory which 
has uniformly been maintained by Arminians in 
their controversies with Calvinists. The grand 
objection of Arminians to the Calvinistic doctrine 
of the Divine Decrees, has been, that it involves 
the position that God purposed or decreed the 
existence of sin ; and when they have been ask- 
ed, why God did not prevent the existence of sin, 
unless it was, on the whole, his purpose that it 
should exist? their reply has been invariably, in 
substance, as follows ; God could not have pie- 
vented sin without destroying the moral agency 
of his creatures; in other words, he could not 
have prevented all sin in a moral system. Thus 
Mr. Fletcher, the distinguished advocate of the 
Wesley an system, represents the Divine Being as 
saying, " I foresaw, indeed, that by such a final 
contempt of my grace, many would bring de- 
struction upon themselves; but having wisely 
decreed to make a world of probationers and 
free agents, I could not necessarily incline their 
will to obedience without robbing them of free 
agency, without foolishly defeating the counsel 
of my own will, and absurdly spoiling the work 
of my own hands.'" Thus also, the author of 
the " Errors of Hopkinsianism," (an avowed Ar- 



130 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

minian,) says, " No doubt but God sought the 
greatest good of the universe, consistently with 
his own nature, and the nuture of man ; and con- 
sistently with these natures, the greatest good is 
obtained, because man refuses to have more. A 
part of the human race choose death in the error 
of their ways; and to have made man a neces- 
sary agent, would have been to make him any 
thing besides an intelligent creature. 

The principle assumed by both of these wri- 
ters, (and the same is true of Arminians gener- 
ally,) is, that God could not have prevented the 
existence of sin, without robbing man of free 
agency, and making him a necessary agent. 
The same ground is taken by the New Haven 
divines. 

Should it be said, that those who maintain 
that God foreordained the existence of a moral 
system with the foreknowledge that sin would be 
necessarily incidental to it, do virtually maintain 
that he decreed the existence of sin — I reply : 
This view of the divine decrees, Arminians have 
always been ready to admit ; but they have not 
understood this to be the Calvinistic doctrine, 
nor has it been so understood by Calvinists them- 
selves. The doctrine which Calvinists have 
maintained is, that the present system, is the best 
conceivable system — that it is the very system 
which God preferred to all others — and that not- 
withstanding the sin and misery which it includes, 
it will result in a higher display of the divine glory, 
than any other system of which the infinite mind 
could conceive. They have never supposed that 
God was unable to secure universal holiness in 
his moral kingdom ; but have uniformly main- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 131 

tained that he permitted sin to exist, because he 
saw that he could so overrule it, and counteract 
its tendencies, as to render it conducive to the 
highest good of the universe. They believe that 
he can bring good out of evil, and light out of 
darkness ; and that he will make the wrath of 
man to praise him, and restrain the remainder. 
They believe that his character is perfect — that 
his plan is perfect — that his work is prefect, and 
that nothing will ever be permitted to exist, which 
was not included in his eternal purpose, and 
which will not be rendered subservient to his 
great and glorious designs. 

Yours arTectionatelv. 



LETTER XIV. 

March 23, 1837, 

My Dear Brother : 

In my last letter, I attempted to show the wide 
difference between the views of the New Haven 
divines and those of the standard orthodox wri- 
ters of New England, in relation to the govern- 
ment of God over the moral universe. The dif- 
ference is no less palpable in regard to Original 
Sin and Native Depravity. 

The New Haven divines maintain that man- 
kind come into the world with the same nature in 
kind as that with which Adam was created — 
that there is no natural or constitutional propen- 
sity to sin ; no hereditary corruption of nature 
which is transmitted from parent to child, and 
by consequence, that Adam was not the federal 
head and representative of his posterity. They 
maintain that infants sustain the same relation to 
the moral government of God as brute animals ; 
that they are in no sense sinners, and that death, 
in their case, is not on account of sin. To be 
consistent, they must, of course, maintain that 
they do not need redemption or regeneration. 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 133 

In proof of this statement, I refer to the fol- 
lowing passages, out of many that might be 
quoted : 

" But Mr. Harvey may retort the question 
upon us, and ask, whence, upon our principles, 
does man derive his moral nature? We answer, 
without hesitation, from the hand of God who 
made him." " Every soul, as it enters on exist- 
ence, is a production of creative power. He 
who forms it, gives it from the first that nature or 
constitution which prepares it for action when 
placed in the appropriate circumstances of its 
being. And as well might we affirm that it is 
the nature of a stone to fall, and yet that God is 
not the author of gravitation, as that nature is 
itself sinful, and yet that God is not the author 
of sin." " If Mr. Harvey chooses to maintain 
that minds are propagated, and that sin is trans- 
mitted in generation, it will only remove the dif- 
ficulty one step further back. For, we ask, who 
established the laws of propagation ? Can a 
being come into existence of which God is not 
the author ? Every soul, then, which becomes 
united to a human body, has either existed from 
eternity, or has been brought into existence by 
God, and every thing pertaining to such a soul 
which is not its ' own act/ must of necessity 
result from the act of the Creator." — Christian 
Spectator for 1829, pp. 348, 349. 

" Infants die. The answer has been given a 
thousand times, brutes die also. But Mr. .Har- 
vey replies, ' animals are not subjects of the 
moral government of God.' Neither are infants 
previous to moral agency ; for what has moral 
government to do with those who are not moral 
12 



134 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

agents? Animals and infants, previous to moral 
agency, do therefore, stand on precisely the same 
ground in reference to this subject. Suffering 
and death afford no more evidence of sin in one 
case than in the other. — Id. p. 373. 

" Did not vehement desire produce sin in 
Adam's first act of transgression ? Was there 
any previous principle of depravity in him 1 
Why then may not strong constitutional desires 
be followed now by a choice of their objects, as 
well as in the case of Adam?" — Id. p. 3(36. 

" If no being can sin, without a constitutional 
propensity to sin, how came Adam to sin ? If 
one being, as Adam, can sin, and did in fact sin, 
without such a propensity, why may not others V 
— Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. vi. p. 13. 

" Mankind come into the world with the same 
nature in kind as that with which Adam was 
created." — Id. p. 5. 

" What influence has the fall exerted on the 
posterity of Adam ? I answer, that it may have 
been to change their nature, not in kind, but in 
degree." — Id. p. 12. 

Compare the foregoing with the following ex- 
tracts : 

President Edwards. " By original sin, as 
the phrase has been most commonly used by 
divines, is meant innate, sinful depravity of the 
heart. But yet, when the doctrine of original 
sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that 
latitude, as to include not only the depravity of 
nature, but the imputation of Adam's first sin, or 
in other words, the liableness or exposedness of 
Adam's posterity, in the divine judgment to par- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 135 

take of the punishment of that sin." — Treatise 
on Original Sin, pp. 1, 2. 

" The natural state of the mind of man is 
attended with a propensity of nature, which is 
prevalent and effectual to such an issue ; and, 
therefore their nature is corrupt and depraved 
with a moral depravity that amounts to and im- 
plies their utter undoing. — Id. p. 9. 

" We have the same evidence that the propen- 
sity in this case lies in the nature of the subject, 
and don't arise from any particular circumstan- 
ces, as we have in any case whatsoever ; which 
is only by the effects appearing to be the same in 
all changes of time and place, and under all vari- 
ations of circumstances. — Id. p. 23. 

" That propensity which has been proved to 
be in the nature of all mankind must be a very 
evil, depraved, and pernicious propensity ; ma- 
king it manifest that the soul of man, as it is by 
nature, is in a corrupt, fallen, and ruined state." 
— Id. p. 27. 

"In this place, (Job, xv. 14,) we are not only 
told how wicked man's heart is, but also, how 
men come by such wickedness ; even by being 
of the race of mankind, by ordinary generation. 
'Tis most plain that man being born of a woman 
is the reason of his not being clean." " And 
without doubt, David has respect to this same 
way of derivation, when he says, (Psalm lvii : 5,) 
4 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did 
my mother coneive me.' " — Id. pp. 191, 195. 

But it is needless to quote from Edwards. 
Any one who will read attentively his Treatise 
on Original Sin, will perceive that it is irrcconci- 



136 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

leably at variance with the system of the New 
Haven divines. 

Dr. Bellamy. " Adam was created in the 
image of God ; it was co-natural to him to love 
God with all his heart, and this would have been 
our case had he not rebelled against God ; but 
now we are bom devoid of the divine image, 
have no heart for God, are transgressors from the 
womb, by nature children of wrath." " We are 
born into the world, not only destitute of a con- 
formity to the law, but we are natively, diamet- 
rically opposed to it in the temper of our hearts." 
" If any should inquire, ' But can it be right 
that Adam's sin should have any influence upon 
us V I answer, it is a plain case that it actually 
has, and we may depend upon it that the judge 
of all the earth does right. And besides, why 
may not God make Adam our public head and 
representative, to act in our room, as he has 
since, for our recovery, made his own son our 
public head and representative."' " If he had 
kept the covenant of his God, and secured hap- 
piness to all his race, should we not forever have 
blessed God for so good a constitution ?" " And 
if we should thus have approved this constitu- 
tion, had Adam never sinned, why might we not 
as justly approve it now, if we would be but dis- 
interestedly partial ?" — Bellamy's works, Vol. I, 
pp.201, 221. 

Dr. Hopkins, " By the constitution and cov- 
enant with Adam, his first disobedience was the 
disobedience of all mankind. That is, the sin 
and consequent ruin of all the human race was, 
by this constitution, infallibly connected with the 
first sin of the head and father of the race. Bv 



OF NEW HAYEX THEOLOGY 137 

the divine constitution, the appointment of God, 
if the head and father of mankind sinned, the 
whole race of men, all his posterity should sin, 
and in this sense, it would be the sin of the whole. 
Accordingly, when the head became a sinner, 
and moral corruption took possession of the 
heart, a sure foundation was laid by the constitu- 
tion under which man was, for the same sin and 
moral corruption to take place, and spread 
through all the human race ; just as by a divine 
appointment, or law of nature, the sap of the 
root or original stock of a tree, passes into the 
numerous limbs, twigs, and fruit of the tree, as 
they successively grow out of it." — (See the con- 
nexion.) — Hopten's System, Vol. 1, p. 250. 

Dr. Dwight. The thirty-second sermon in 
his system of theology is entitled, " Human de- 
pravity derived from Adam." In this sermon, 
commenting on Romans v. 12, 19, he says, " The 
meaning of these passages is, I think, plainly the 
following : that by means of the offence or trans- 
gression of Adam, the judgment or sentence of 
God came upon all men unto condemnation, be- 
cause, and solely because, all men in that state of 
things which was constituted in consequence of 
the transgression of Adam, became sinners." 
He says also, " It cannot, I think, be questioned, 
that Moses intended to inform us that Seth was 
begotten in the moral likeness of Adam after his 
apostacy, and sustained from his birth a moral 
character similar to that which his two brothers, 
Cain and Abel, also sustained. This view of 
the subject appears plainly to have been adopted 
by Job, when he asks, ' who can bring a clean 
thing out of an unclean? Not one.' (Job xiv. 4.) 
12* 



133 OKIGIN AND PROGRESS 

By Bildad, when he asks, i how then can man 
be justified with God, or how can he be clean 
that is born of a woman 1' (xxv. 4.) By David, 
when he says, (Psalm, li. 5.) ' behold I was sha- 
pen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother con- 
ceive me.' And by Paul, when he says, ' as we 
have borne the image of the earthy, (Adam) so 
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly 
(Adam) (1 Cor. xv. 49.) But if Seth, Cain, and 
Abel derived their corruption from the apostacy 
of their parents, then it is true, not only that 
their corruption, but that of all mankind, exists 
in consequence of the apostacy." 

Dr. Smalley. s " We are not condemned 
being innocent. We were born sinners — we 
were conceived sinners, and as such only are con- 
demned. We did not make ourselves sinners, 
it is true, by any bad conduct before we were 
inclined to sin — but no more did Adam. He 
was condemned only for being a sinner, and 
committing sin, and just so is every one of us. 
Only as, according to a divine constitution, 
founded in sovereign wisdom entirely, the trial 
of human nature in innocence was in Adam 
alone, (either including or exclusively of Eve,) so 
it may with propriety be said, " By the offence of 
one, judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
tion ;" for had he persevered in obedience, the 
justification of life would have come upon all on 
account of his righteousness. It is agreeable to 
common sense, and seems plainly supposed in 
several texts and doctrines of scripture, that de- 
pravity of nature must be antecedent to all sinful 
actions, and the cause of them. But if so, there 
may be a wicked heart prior to knowledge. There 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 139 

may be a propensity to sinful actions in a child, 
before it come to years to choose the evil, and 
refuse the good. This may be in us as early as 
we have souls.'' — Smalley 's Sermons. Sermon 11. 
(Seethe whole Sermon.) 

Dr. Grifeix. u By the first creation or birth, 
mankind are united to the first Adam, and inher- 
it the character which he possessed immediately 
after the fail : until, by a second creation or birth, 
they are united to the second Adam, and become 
partakers of his holiness." " Here is a wonder 
to be accounted for — sin tainting every individ- 
ual of Adam's race, in every age, country, and 
condition, and surviving in every heart, all exer- 
tions to destroy it. One would think this might 
prove, if any thing could prove, that sin belongs 
to the nature of man as much as reason or speech, 
(though in a sense altogether compatible with 
blame,) and must be derived, like other universal 
attributes of our nature, from the original pa- 
rent, propagated precisely "like reason and 
speech, (neither of which is exercised at first,) 
propagated like many other propensities, mental 
as well as bodily, which certainly are inherited 
from parents, propagated like the noxious nature 
of other animals. 55 — Park Street Lectures, pp. 
11, 12, 13. 

Andover Confession of Faith. u Adam, 
the federal head and representative of the human 
race, was placed in a state of probation, and in 
consequence of ins disobedience, all his descend- 
ants are constituted sinners, and by nature every 
man is personally depraved." 

Dr. Woods. — " I inquire whether Adam's sin 
effects his posterity in this way, viz: that by a 



140 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

special divine constitution they are, in conse- 
quence of his fall, born in a state of moral de- 
pravity leading to certain ruin; or that, accord- 
ing to the common law of descent, they are par- 
takers of a corrupt nature, the offspring being 
like the parent; and that suffering and death 
come upon them, not as personally innocent and 
pure, but as depraved and sinful beings. This 
opinion is maintained by Calvin, Edwards, 
Dwight, and orthodox divines generally. And 
this is the view of the subject which I consider 
as more conformable to the word of God, and to 
facts, than any other. As to those who deny the 
doctrine of native depravity, and the doctrine of 
imputation, and hold the doctrine of John Tay- 
lor and the Unitarians, and yet profess to believe 
that we are depraved and ruined in consequence 
of Adam's sin, I am at a loss to know what their 
belief amounts to. They say Adam's sin had an 
influence, but they deny all the conceivable ways 
in which it could have an influence and particu- 
larly the ways which are most clearly brought to 
view in Rom. v, and in other parts of Scripture. 
If I am asked whether I hold the doctrine of 
imputation my reply must depend on the mean- 
ing you give to the word. Just make the ques- 
tion definite by substituting the explanation for 
the word, and an answer will be easy. Do you 
then mean what Stapfer, and Edwards, and many 
others mean, viz: that for God to give Adam a 
posterity like himself and to impute his sin to 
thesn, is one and the same thing. Then my an- 
swer is, that God did, in this sense impute Adam's 
sin to his posterity. This is the very thing im- 
plied in the doctrine of native depravity. By the 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 141 

doctrine of imputation, do you mean that Adam's 
sin was the occasion of our ruin; that it was the 
distant, though real cause of our condemnation 
and de^th? I consider the doctrine, thus under- 
stood, to be according to scripture. Do you 
mean that we are guilt} , that is, (according to the 
true original meaning of the word,) exposed to 
suffering on account of Adam's sin ? In this 
view, too, I think the doctrine scriptural. But if 
the doctrine of imputation means, that for Adam's 
sin alone God inflicts the penalty of the law upon 
any one of his posterity, they themselves being 
perfectly sinless, then the doctrine, in my view, 
wants proof. There appears to be no such place 
for such a doctrine, seeing all Adam's posterity 
are, from the first morally depraved. And if 
they are allowed to be so, I know not why any 
one should think that God, makes no account of 
their depravity, in the sufferings which he brings 
upon them." — Essay on Native Depravity, pp. 
186—188. 

It would be easy to multiply quotations — but 
it cannot surely be necessary. There may have 
been a shade of difference among New England 
divines in their views of original sin. But so far 
as I have known, all who have claimed to be 
Calvinists, (until the i\e\v Haven divines arose,) 
have maintained that Adam is the federal head 
and representative of his posterity, the covenant 
was made with him, not only for himself, but his 
posteritv, that a condition of the covenant was, 
that if he persevered in holiness, he should be the 
progenitor of a holy race, and if he apostatized, 
he should be the progenitor of an unholy race, 
and that all mankind come into the world in a 



142 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 

state of condemnation, and that none can be sav- 
ed without regeneration and redemption by the 
blood of Christ. How widely these views differ 
from those maintained by the New Haven divines, 
is sufficiently apparent from extracts from their 
writings in this,, and previous letters. 

Yours affectionately* 



LETTER XV. 

April 26, 1831 

My Dear Brother : 

The views of the New Haven divines in rela* 
tion to the doctrine of regeneration, differ wide- 
ly from those which have been maintained by 
New England Calvinists. They maintain that 
the term regeneration is to be understood in two 
senses — the theological and popular sense. In the 
first sense, it denotes a change in the governing 
purpose of the mind, and is that act of the will or 
heart, by which the sinner, prompted by self-love, 
chooses God as his portion or chief good. In the 
last, or popular sense, it denotes a process or series 
of acts and states of mind, and includes all those 
acts which they denominate " using the means 
of regeneration. " They maintain that antece- 
dent to regeneration, in the restricted, or theolo- 
gical sense, the selfish principle is suspended in 
the sinner's heart, that the sinner then ceases to 
sin, and is in a state of neutrality, and that in 
this state, he uses the means of regeneration with 
motives which are neither right nor wrong — he 
takes into solemn consideration the question 



144 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

whether the highest happiness is to be found in 
God or in the world — he pursues this inquiry, 
till it results in the conviction that such happi- 
ness is to be found in God only. He follows up 
the conviction with engrossing contemplation, 
till he discovers an excellence in divine objects 
which excites him to make desperate efforts to 
give his heart to God, and in this process of 
thought, of effort, and of action, he preseveres 
till it results in a change of heart, Thus they. 
in fact, represent regeneration as a gradual and 
progressive work. They also maintain that the 
sinner may so resist the grace of God, as to ren- 
der it impossible for God to convert him. 

The following quotations will exhibit their 
views on this subject. 

" Regeneration considered as a moral change 
of which man is the subject, giving God the 
heart — making a new heart — loving God su- 
premely, &c. are terms and phrases, which, in 
popular use, denote a complex act. Each, in 
popular use, denotes what, in a more analytical 
mode of speaking, may be viewed and described 
as made up of several particular acts and states 
of mind, or a series of such acts and states." 
" When we speak of the means of regeneration, 
we shall use the word regeneration in a more 
limited import than its ordinary popular import, 
and shall confine it chiefly, for the sake of con- 
venient phraseology, to the act of the will or 
heart, in distinction from other mental acts con- 
nected with it, or to that act of the will or heart 
which consists in a preference of God to every 
other object, or to that disposition of heart, or 
governing affection or purpose of the man, which 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 145 

consecrates him to the service of God." " We 
proceed to say, then, that before the act of the 
will or heart, in which the sinner first prefers 
God to every other object, the object of the pre- 
ference must be viewed or estimated as the great- 
est good. Before the object can be viewed as 
the greatest good, it must be compared with 
other objects, as both are sources or means of 
good. Before this act of comparing, there must 
be an act dictated, not by selfishness, but by self 
love, in which the mind determines to direct its 
thoughts to the objects for the sake of consid- 
ering their relative value, of forming a judgment 
respecting it, and of choosing the one or the 
other as the chief good." " Divine truth does 
not become a means to this end, until the selfish 
principle, so long cherished in the heart, is sus- 
pended ; and the mind is left to the control of 
that constitutional desire for happiness, which is 
an original principle of our nature." " Let the 
sinner, then, as a being who loves happiness and 
desires the highest, degree of it, under the influ- 
ence of such a desire, take into solemn consid- 
eration the question whether the highest happi- 
ness is to be found in God or in the world ; let 
him pursue this inquiry, if need be, till it result 
in the conviction that such happiness is to be 
found in God only ; and let him follow up this 
conviction with that intent and engrossing con- 
templation of the realities which truth discloses, 
and with that stirring up of his sensibilities in 
view of them, which shall invest the world, when 
considered as his only portion, with an aspect of 
insignificance, of gloom, and even of terror, and 
which shall chill and suspend his present active 
13 



146 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

love of it ; and let the contemplation be perse* 
vered in, till it shall discover a reality and excel- 
lence in the objects of holy affection, which shall 
put him upon direct and desperate efforts to fix 
his heart upon them; and let this process of 
thought, of effort, and of action, be entered upon 
as one which is never to be abandoned until the 
end proposed by it is accomplished — until the 
only living and true God is loved and chosen, as 
his God forever ; and we say, that in this way the 
work of his regeneration, through grace, may be 
accomplished." " God tells the sinner, that it is 
better to obey than to disobey him. The thought 
conveyed in the mind of the sinner is an arrow 
in his sentient nature. It penetrates, it fastens, 
it is felt. The appropriate tendency of the feel* 
ings is to the voluntary act of sober, solemn con- 
sideration. This act the sinner has power to do 
or to avoid. And here the mental process of us- 
ing the means of regeneration, either begins or 
does not begin. If he thus considers, it begins, 
and now the appropriate tendency of considera- 
tion is to deepen emotion; and thus, by the mu- 
tual influence of thought and feeling, the ten- 
dency of the mind to that entire mental process 
which we have described, and the tendency of 
the process to a change of heart become undeni- 
able, and conspicuous in human consciousness." 
—Ch. Spec, for 1829, pp. 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 33, 
227. 

" As to those who hold to the infusion of 
something into the soul previous, either in the 
order of time or of nature, to the first right af- 
fection, and as a sort of fountain from which 
such affection is to flow, we would only say, that 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 147 

although we do not impute to them the blasphe- 
my, yet we cannot wholly acquit them of the ab- 
surdity of Gibbon, who, in pretending to de- 
scribe the manner in which the primitive teach- 
ers of Christianity were inspired, says, they were 
mere organs of the Holy Spirit, just as a pipe or 
flute is of him who blows into it." — CJt. S_pec. 
for 1833, p. 361. 

" I do not believe that the grace of God can 
be truly said to be irresistible, m the primary and 
proper sense of this term. But I do believe that 
in all cases it may be resisted by man as a free, 
moral agent." — Dr. Taylors letter to Dr. 
Howes. 

11 The means of reclaiming grace, which meet 
him in the word and Spirit of God, are those by 
which the Father draws, induces, just such sin- 
ners as himself, voluntarily to submit to Christ: 
and these means all favor the act of his immedi- 
ate submission. To this influence he can yield, 
and thus be drawn by the Father. This influence 
he can resist, and thus harden his heart ao-ainst 
God/ —Ch. Spec, for 1831, p. 637. 

" Free moral agents can do wrong under all 
possible preventing influence.'' "What finite 
being, then, we ask, can know that a universe of 
free agents, who possess, of course, the power 
of sinning, could have been held back from the 
exercise of that power, in every possible con- 
junction of circumstances, even by all the influ- 
ences to obedience which God can exert upon 
them without destroying their freedom." — Ch. 
Spec, for 1830, p. 563. 

Compare the foregoing with the following ex- 
tracts. 



148 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

President Edwards. " The nature of vir- 
tue being a positive thing, can proceed from no- 
thing but God's immediate influence and must 
take its rise from creation or infusion by God. 
For it must be either from that, or from our own 
choice and production, either at once, or gradu- 
ally by culture. But it cannot begin, or take its 
rise from the latter, viz. our choice or volunta- 
ry diligence. For if there exists nothing at all 
of the nature of virtue before, it cannot come 
from cultivation ; for by the supposition, there is 
nothing of the nature of virtue to cultivate. 
The first virtuous choice, or a disposition to it, 
must be immediately given, or it must proceed 
from a preceding choice. If the first virtuous 
act of will or choice, be from a preceding act of 
will or choice, that preceding act of choice must 
be a virtuous act of choice, which is contrary to 
the supposition." " As to man's inability to con- 
vert himself. In them that are totally corrupt, 
there can be no tendency towards their making 
their hearts better, till they begin to repent of 
the badness of their hearts. For if they do not 
repent they still approve of it, and that tends to 
maintain their badness and confirm it. The heart 
can have no tendency to make itself better, till 
it begins to have a better tendency ; for therein 
consists its badness, viz. its having no good ten- 
dency or inclination. And to begin to have a 
good tendency, or which is the same thing, a 
tendency and inclination to be better, is the 
same thing as to begin already to be better." 
i( The first virtue we have, certainly does not 
arise from virtuous endeavors preceding that first 
virtue. For that is to suppose virtue before the 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 149 

first virtue. If the answer be, that they are no 
good endeavors, they have nothing at all of the 
nature of the exercise of any good disposition, 
or any good aim and intention, or of any virtu- 
ous sincerity ; I ask what tendency can such ef- 
forts of the mind, as are wholly empty of all 
goodness, have to produce true moral goodness 
in the heart ?" " Conversion is a work that is 
done at once and not gradually." " Those who 
deny infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit, must, 
of necessity, deny the Spirit to do any thing at 
all." " The questions relating to efficacious 
grace, controverted between us and the Armini- 
ans, are two: 1, whether the grace of God in 
giving us saving virtue, be determined and deci- 
sive. 2, whether saving virtue be decisively 
given by a supernatural and sovereign operation 
of the Spirit of God." "The dispute about 
grace, being resistible or irresistible, is perfect 
nonsense. For the effect of grace is upon the 
will ; so that it is nonsense, except it be proper 
to say that a man with his will can resist his own 
will ; that is, except it be possible for a man to 
will a thing and not will it at the same time." — 
Edward's Remarks, pp. 182, 217, 218, 223, 224, 
255, 275. 

Dr. Dwight. " In regeneration, the very 
same thing is done by the Spirit of God for the 
soul, which was done for Adam by the same di- 
vine agent at his creation. The soul of man was 
created with a relish for spiritual objects. The 
soul of every man, who becomes a Christian, is 
renewed by the communication of the same rel- 
ish." " The carnal mind, that is the original, 
natural disposition of man is enmity against 
13* 



150 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

God, not subject to his law, neither indeed can 
be. Before this change, therefore, there is no 
holiness in the character — no relish for spiritual 
good — no exercise of virtuous volition — no pur- 
suit of virtuous conduct. All these things begin 
to be chosen, and to be practiced, after they begin 
to be relished, and the first relish for them ex- 
ists in this renovation of the mind." " This 
change is instantaneous. This position has been 
as much controverted as any of those advanced 
in this discourse ; but, as it seems to me, with 
no solid support either from reason or revelation. 
The scheme of those who oppose this doctrine 
appears generally to be this ; the subject cf re- 
generation is supposed to begin at some time or 
other, to turn his attention to spiritual concerns. 
He begins seriously to think on them ; to read con- 
cerning them ; to dwell upon them in the house of 
God, in his meditations, in his closet, and in his 
conversation. By degrees he gains a more 
thorough acquaintance with the guilt and danger 
of sin, and the importance of holiness, pardon, ac- 
ceptance, and salvation. By degrees, also, he re- 
nounces one sinful practice and propensity after 
another, andthus finally arrives at a neutral char- 
acter, in which he is neither a sinner, in the abso- 
lute sense, nor yet a Christian. Advancing from 
this stage, he begins, at length, to entertain, in a 
small degree, virtuous affections, and to adopt 
virtuous conduct ; and thus proceeds from one 
virtuous attainment to another, while he lives. 
Some of the facts here supposed, taken sepa- 
rately, are real ; for some of them undoubtedly 
take place in the minds, and lives of those who 
become religious men. But the whole consider- 



OF NEW HAVEX THEOLOGY. 151 

ed together, and as a scheme concerning this 
subject, is. in my view, entirely erroneous.' 1 
;i There is a period, in which every man who be- 
comes holy, at first becomes holy. At a period, 
immediately antecedent to this, whenever it takes 
place, he was not holy. The commencement of 
holiness in his mind was, therefore, instantane- 
ous : or it began to exist at some given moment 
of time. Nor is it in the nature of things pos- 
sible, that it should be otherwise.'"' — D (eight's 
Theology, Vol 2, pp. 419, 4*20, 4«24. 

Dr. Smauley. t; Regeneration is such an es- 
sential change of nature, as supposes something 
created in a proper and strict sense. It is ex- 
pressly spoken of under the name and notion of 
a creation in a number of places. Eph. iv. "24. 
" The new man which after God is created in 
righteousness and true holiness."'' Col. iii. 10. 
u The new man which is renewed in knowledge 
after the image of him who created him." And 
2 Cor. v. IT. " It any man be in Christ he is 
a new creature." We may also observe, that 
most if not all other phrases, by which this 
change is expressed, plainly convey the same idea 
of it, and of the manner in which it is effected. '' 
M If it be true that man is by nature totally de- 
praved in the spirit of the mind, it is a plain case 
that the beginning of holiness in him, can be no 
otherwise than by a new creation. When spirit- 
ual life is once begun in the soul, in however low 
a degree, it may be preserved and increased bv 
moral means. But the first production of the 
radical principle of life, can no more be the ef- 
fect of any second cause, than the first root or 
seed of any plant or tree, could have been pro- 



152 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

duced by rain, sunshine, and cultivation. Those 
who hold that regeneration is effected by the 
moral power of light and truth, either leave true 
holiness wholly out of the account from the first 
to last, or suppose mankind not totally destitute 
of it by nature ; or else talk in a manner alto- 
gether inconsistent." 

Dr. Strong. " Regeneration is that change 
from which holy exercises proceed, and is there- 
fore the beginning of spiritual life in the soul. 
It is the beginning of that moral conformity to 
God which is the true preparation for heaven 
and its blessedness." " It is not the modification 
of any moral principle, which previously existed 
in the mind, but the production of one that is 
new. The heart or the will and affections are 
the seat of this change ; therefore, the increase 
of doctrinal or speculative knowledge, be the de- 
gree ever so great, hath no tendency to regener- 
ate a person. Doctrinal light hath its seat in the 
understanding, and it is contrary to all experi- 
ence, that more knowledge of an object to which 
the heart or will is, from its very nature oppos- 
ed, will change the opposition into love. We 
may know this from the objects of love and ha- 
tred, which daily occur in the experience of life. 
If the taste of the mind be opposed to the nature 
of an object, the more the object is seen, the 
more an opposing taste will exert itself, the divine 
action in regenerating an unholy soul is, there- 
fore, on the heart or will and affections. What 
we call a new moral principle, may also be called 
a new taste, relish, temper, disposition, or habit 
of feeling respecting moral objects and truth." 

Dr. Backus. " From the account of this 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 153 

change which hath been taken from the word of 
truth, it appears that God operateth on the heart 
by the Spirit, previously to its holy exertions, 
and that all its exercises are the effects of this 
divine operation." " The heart or the temper 
of the mind is changed in regeneration. The 
design of it is, to restore the holy temper which 
was lost by the apostacy." " Regeneration is an 
instantaneous change. There can be no point 
in which one is neither in a renewed nor an un- 
renewed state ; and therefore, when the new heart 
is given, it must be given in an instant." " The 
more attentively we examine the doctrine of pro- 
gressive regeneration, the more fully it will ap- 
pear that it is built on principles which deny the 
full extent of man's depravity." — Backus on Re- 
generation, pp. 15, 20, 25. 

Dr. Griffin. " Yielding then to the point 
that man is an enemy to God till the change is 
complete, it may yet be asked, is not that enmity 
gradually weakened ? It cannot be radically 
weakened till its cause is weakened, which is su- 
preme self-love, (or more generally the love of 
the creature, for the social affections, too, may 
set up their objects in opposition,) struggling 
against the law and administration of God. But 
the love of the creature, in which self-love is in- 
cluded, cannot be weakened before the love of 
God is introduced." " In every view, then, it 
appears that there can be no approaches towards 
regeneration in the antecedent temper of the 
heart. The moment before the change, the sin- 
ner is as far from sanctification as darkness is 
from light, as sin is from holiness." u What is 
the character of the natural heart ? And what 



154 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

is holiness ? are the two questions, which on this 
subject must divide the world. For if holiness 
is a simple principle, and first introduced in re- 
generation, especially, if it is a principle of su- 
preme love to God, following supreme selfishness, 
nothing can be plainer than that the change is as 
sudden as the first drop that falls into a vessel, or 
the first ray that penetrates a dungeon." — Park 
Street Lectures, pp. 93, 97, 101. 

Dr. Woods. " The renewal of sinners is 
effected by divine power. The scripture teaches 
this in a variety of ways. It represents that be- 
lievers are God's workmanship, that they are 
born of God ; that he quickens them, that he 
gives them a new heart, turns them from sin, and 
makes them obedient and holy. It ascribes to 
God, as the supreme cause, every particular thing 
which constitutes the character of Christians. 
This conception of the divine power in regene- 
ration is plain and simple. We look at holiness 
in man and ascribe it to God as its cause. The 
view we take of this new spiritual creation is just 
as simple and obvious as of the natural creation. 
The heavens and the earth which once did not 
exist, but which now exist before our eyes, are 
effects flowing from the operation of God's pow- 
er. He created them. They exist in conse- 
quence of the act of his will. There that which 
is proclaimed is material, or physical ; in the 
other case spiritual, or moral ; things in their na- 
ture altogether different from each other, but 
equally effects, resulting from the operation of 
divine power ; so that the honor of renewing 
sinners is due to God, as really and directly, as 
the honor of creating the world. This is a prac- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 155 

tical truth, taught clearly in the scriptures, and 
impressed upon the hearts of ail Christians, and 
impressed more and more deeply as they advance 
in the divine life." " How can it be supposed 
that such a change results from any thing in man 1 
If we should suppose this, we should quickly 
find our supposition contradicted by the word of 
God, and should be taught that our reliance must 
be, ' not on him that willeth nor on him that 
runneth, but on God who showeth mercy.' " 
" The renewal of sinners is exercised in a sove- 
reign manner. By this is meant that those who 
are regenerated by divine power, are no more de- 
serving of the favor bestowed upon them, and of 
themselves no more inclined to turn from their 
sins, than those who are left to perish. The rea- 
son why one man is renewed, rather than others, 
cannot be found in any attribute of his character, 
or in any exercise of his understanding, his af- 
fections, or his will. Unquestionably God, who 
is infinitely wise, has a good reason for all that 
he does. But the reason of his conduct in this 
case, as in many others, lies in his own mind." — 
Doctrinal Tracts, No. 19. 

These extracts afford a fair specimen of the 
views which are entertained by the great mass of 
New England ministers on this subject. 

Yours affectionately. 



154 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

is holiness 1 are the two questions, which on this 
subject must divide the world. For if holiness 
is a simple principle, and first introduced in re- 
generation, especially, if it is a principle of su- 
preme love to God, following supreme selfishness, 
nothing can be plainer than that the change is as 
sudden as the first drop that falls into a vessel, or 
the first ray that penetrates a dungeon." — Park 
Street Lectures, pp. 93, 97, 101. 

Dr. Woods. " The renewal of sinners is 
effected by divine power. The scripture teaches 
this in a variety of ways. It represents that be- 
lievers are God's workmanship, that they are 
born of God; that he quickens them, that he 
gives them a new heart, turns them from sin, and 
makes them obedient and holy. It ascribes to 
God, as the supreme cause, every particular thing 
which constitutes the character of Christians. 
This conception of the divine power in regene- 
ration is plain and simple. We look at holiness 
in man and ascribe it to God as its cause. The 
view we take of this new spiritual creation is just 
as simple and obvious as of the natural creation. 
The heavens and the earth which once did not 
exist, but which now exist before our eyes, are 
effects flowing from the operation of God's pow- 
er. He created them. They exist in conse- 
quence of the act of his will. There that which 
is proclaimed is material, or physical ; in the 
other case spiritual, or moral ; things in their na- 
ture altogether different from each other, but 
equally effects, resulting from the operation of 
divine power ; so that the honor of renewing 
sinners is due to God, as really and directly, as 
the honor of creating the world. This is a prac- 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 155 

tical truth, taught clearly in the scriptures, and 
impressed upon the hearts of all Christians, and 
impressed more and more deeply as they advance 
in the divine life." " How can it be supposed 
that such a change results from any thing in man 1 
If we should suppose this, we should quickly 
find our supposition contradicted by the word of 
God, and should be taught that our reliance must 
be, ' not on him that willeth nor on him that 
runneth, but on God who showeth mercy.' " 
" The renewal of sinners is exercised in a sove- 
reign manner. By this is meant that those who 
are regenerated by divine power, are no more de- 
serving of the favor bestowed upon them, and of 
themselves no more inclined to turn from their 
sins, than those who are left to perish. The rea- 
son why one man is renewed, rather than others, 
cannot be found in any attribute of his character, 
or in any exercise of his understanding, his af- 
fections, or his will. Unquestionably God, who 
is infinitely wise, has a good reason for all that 
he does. But the reason of his conduct in this 
Case, as in many others, lies in his own mind." — 
Doctrinal Tracts, No. 19. 

These extracts afford a fair specimen of the 
views which are entertained by the great mass of 
New England ministers on this subject. 

Yours affectionately. 



LETTER XVI. 

May 1G, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

The views entertained by the New Haven 
divines respecting the influence of self-love, are 
entirely at variance with what has been denomi- 
nated New England Divinity. According to 
them, all moral action, whether holy or sinful, is 
prompted by self-love, or the desire of happiness ; 
in other words, every moral being makes his own 
happiness his ultimate end. Thus they virtual- 
ly destroy the radical distinction between holi- 
ness and sin, making them both proceed from the 
same principle of action. While the sinner 
chooses the world for his portion or chief good 
from a regard to his own happiness, the saint 
chooses God for his portion or chief good for the 
same reason. The distinction of course between 
the saint and the sinner, consists, not in their 
having different ultimate ends, but in their adopt- 
ing different means to obtain the same ultimate 
end. Their language is : 

" There is no more difficulty in accounting 
for the fact, that the yielding sinner supremely 
loves God, from the impulse of a regard to his 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 157 

own happiness, than there is in explaining the 
opposite fact, of his having formerly, under the 
influence of the same principle, when perverted, 
supremely loved his idols ; which, though con- 
trary to his reason and conscience, his heart 
wickedly preferred as his highest good. The 
self-love that was previously in servitude to his 
selfish inclinations, and perverted by their unhal- 
lowed influence, now breaks away from that ser- 
vitude, as his soul, under the power of light and 
motives rendered effectual by the Holy Ghost, is 
made to see and feel where its true interest lies. 
And no -sooner is this duty seen and felt, through 
the influence of the Spirit, than the man who is 
so constituted that he must have a regard to what 
he views as his own highest good, at once 
chooses Christ and his service as the means of 
securing it." — Christian Spectator, for 1633, pp. 
357, 353. 

" This self-love, or desire of happiness is the 
primary cause or reason of all acts of preference, 
or choice, which fix supremely on any object. 
In every moral being who forms a moral charac- 
ter, there must be a first moral act of preference 
or choice. This must respect some one object, 
God, or Mammon, as the chief good, or as an 
object of supreme affection. Now, whence 
comes such a choice or preference I Not from 
a previous choice or preference of the sauie ob- 
ject, for we speak of the Jirst choice of the ob- 
ject. The answer which human consciousness 
gives, is that the being constituted with a capa- 
city for happiness desires to be happy ; and 
knowing that he is capable of deriving happiness 
from different objects, considers from which the 
14 



158 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

greatest happiness may be derived, and as in this 
respect he judges or estimates their relative value, 
so he chooses or prefers, one or the other as his 
chief good."— Id. for 1829, p. 21. 

" Of all specific voluntary action, the happi- 
ness of the agent, in some form, is the ultimate 
end." Id. p. 24. " In this process, the sinner, 
from the desire of happiness, turns his thoughts 
to the decisions and discoveries of eternal truth. 
He sees and feels that the world, taken as his 
portion in this life, brings with it eternal torment 
in the next. Through the dread of the misery 
connected with it, this object of affection loses 
its attractions, and is, as the case may be, so 
overcast with gloominess, that his active love 
and pursuit of it ceases. Now too, he sees that 
the supreme good is in God, only; and there is 
a desirableness surpassing what belongs to all 
things beside, in becoming a child and heir of 
God."— Id. p. 33. 

" While self-love awakens intense desires to 
comply with the terms of mercy, while it power- 
fully and successfully prompts the mind to look 
toward the only object of supreme affection, that 
the heart may fix upon it, still the object is too 
dimly seen — still however it is to be remembered 
that the sinner, disgusted with the former idols 
of his heart, and feeling deeply his exposure to 
the wrath of God, strongly desires, be the ap- 
pointed means what they may, to escape the 
dreadful doom ; that he is willing to fix, and does 
in fact fix the eye of contemplation upon the ob- 
ject of holy affection, and does with such glimp- 
ses of its glories as he may obtain, feel their 
attractions, and summon his heart to that love of 



OF NEW HAVEX THEOLOGY. 159 

God, his Saviour, which is the only condition of 
his mercy."— Id. pp. 230, 231. 

Compare these with the following extracts : 
President Edwards. " The first objective 
ground of gracious affections, is the transcend- 
antly excellent and amiable nature of divine 
things, as they are in themselves, and. not any 
conceived relation they bear to self or self inter- 
est. Some say that divine love arises from self- 
love, and that it is impossible in the nature of 
things for any man to love God, or any other 
being, but that love to himself must be the foun- 
dation of it. But I humbly suppose, it is for 
want of consideration they say so. They argue 
that whoever loves God, and so desires his glory, 
or the enjoyment of him, desires these things as 
his own happiness; the glory of God, and the 
beholding and the enjoying of his perfections, 
are considered as things agreeable to him, tending 
to make him happy. And so they say, it is through 
self-love, or a desire of his own happiness, that 
he desires God should be glorified, and desires to 
behold and enjoy his glorious perfections. There 
is no doubt, but that after God's glory and be- 
holding his perfections, are becoming agreeable 
to him, he will desire them as he desires his own 
happiness. But how came these things to be so 
very agreeable to him, that he esteems it his 
highest happiness to glorify God ? &,c. Is not 
this the fruit of love ? Must not a man first love 
God, or have his heart united to him before he 
will esteem God's good his own, and before he 
will desire the glorifying and enjoying of God as 
his happiness ? It is not strong arguing, because 
after a man has his heart united to God in love, 



160 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

and, as a fruit of this, he desires his glory and 
enjoyment as his own happiness, that therefore, 
a desire of this happiness must needs be the 
cause and foundation of his love, unless it be 
strong arguing that because a father begat a son, 
therefore his son certainly begat him." — Ed- 
ward's works, Vol. v., pp. 129 — 140. 

David Brainerd. " These things I saw with 
great clearness when I was thought to be dying, 
and God gave me great concern for his church 
and interest in the world at this time. Not so 
much, because the late remarkable influence 
upon the minds of the people was abated and 
almost wholly gone, as because the false religion, 
the heats of imagination, and wild and selfish 
commotions of the animal affections, which 
attended the work of grace had prevailed so far. 
This was that which my mind dwelt upon day 
and night, and this to me was the darkest appear- 
ance respecting religion in the land. For it was 
this chiefly that had prejudiced the world against 
inward religion. This I saw was the greatest 
misery of all, that so few saw any manner of 
difference between those exercises which are 
spiritual and holy, and those which have self-love 
for their beginning, centre and end." — Brainerd' r s 
Life, p. 498. 

Dr. Bellamy. "It is true, many a carnal 
mind is ravished to think that God loves him, 
and will save him ; but in this case, it is not the 
true character of God which charms the heart ; 
it is not God that is loved. Strictly speaking, he 
only loves himself. And self-love is the only 
source of all his affections. Or, if we call it 
love to God, it is of no other kind than sinners 
feel to one another. For sinners love those that 



OP NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 161 

love them" — Bellamy's works, Vol. II. p. 507. 

Dr. Hopkins. " From this scriptural and ra- 
tional view of disinterested affection, in which 
all true virtue, piety and charity consist, may be 
seen what a great and dangerous mistake they 
have made who suppose there is no virtue or true 
religion, but that which consists in self-love, or 
originates from it, and that no man ever acts, or 
can act from any other principle, whatever he 
may think or pretend. Surely, these ' call evil 
good, and good evil ; put darkness for light, and 
light for darkness ; bitter for sweet, and sweet 
for bitter.' They call that virtue and goodness 
which is directly opposed to all true virtue and 
goodness, and in which all moral evil consists.' 5 
— Hopkins s System, Vol. I. p. 477. 

Dr. Smalley. " Selfishness is so universally 
condemned, and so much is said in the scriptures 
against self-seeking, that one would think no 
labored proof were necessary to convince any 
man who believes the Bible, or any man of 
common sense, whether he believes the Bible, 
or not, that self-love cannot be the prima- 
ry source of all true virtue and religion. Yet, 
however strange, so it is, many great philoso- 
phers, and some learned divines, have been pro- 
fessedly of opinion that the best actions of good 
men, and their most virtuous affections, proceed 
from a mere regard to themselves, as their first 
principle and last end. They think that a well 
regulated self-love will influence a man to what- 
soever things are honest, amiable, or of good 
report ; though a misguided self-love often leads 
men into the reverse of all these. That as, 
whenever we transgress the rule of right, it is 
14* 



162 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

from a wrong idea of our own interest, so when 
we conform to that rule, it is only with a view to 
our own interest rightly understood. Accord- 
ingly they suppose, as one of their poets hath 
said, i self-love and social are the same.' And sev- 
eral systems of divinity widely different in other 
respects, agree in this, that all religion, at bot- 
tom, is nothing but self-love." " Indeed to sup- 
pose self the primary principle, and only ultimate 
end of the virtuous and good, is obviously to con- 
found all real distinction between the best and 
the worst of characters. All men, and undoubt- 
edly devils, also, have self-love enough ; and are 
capable of all those actions and affections which 
have this only for their basis. If therefore, this 
were the bottom principle in the virtuous and 
good, it is plain there would be no essential dif- 
ference of character between saints and sinners, 
or between the angels of heaven, and devils in 
hell. All the difference would be circumstantial; 
arising from the different conditions in which 
they are placed, fhe different treatment they re- 
ceive, and the different ideas they have of the 
disposition of other beings towards them, or of 
their own interest." — Smalley's Sermons, pp. 115, 
116, 118, 119. 

Dr. Griffin. " While the wicked place their 
whole happiness in gratifying affections which 
terminate in themselves or a limited circle, the 
right things, in which the good place their high- 
est happiness, (I suppose it will not be denied,) 
are the glory of God, and the prosperity of his 
kingdom. Now I ask, is the satisfaction which 
they hope to derive to themselves from that good, 
or the good itself, their supreme object? Do they 
rejoice more in the reflection that they (rather 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 163 

than others,) shall enjoy the sight of God's 
glory, than that God will be glorified? If so, 
they no longer place their supreme happiness in 
his glory bat in their own gratification — a gratifi- 
cation, more refined indeed than the grosser 
pleasures of sense, but still personal and private. 
To say that they place their supreme happiness in 
the glory of God, and yet make their own happi- 
ness the highest object, is a plain contradiction. 
To place their supreme happiness in the glory of 
God, necessarily implies that they love and value 
his glory more than any other object. — Park- 
street Lectures, pp. 80, 81. 

Dr. Porter. " Deliberately to admit that 
self-love must be the primary ground of moral 
affection, is to supersede all intelligent discussion 
about regeneration, or any of the kindred doc- 
trines of grace. This one principle sweeps the 
whole away. There remains no radical distinc- 
tion of character between the saint and the sin- 
ner. The most depraved individual on earth, or 
even among apostate spirits is doubtless the cen- 
tre of his own affections. And though he may 
have perverted views of what is his real interest, 
he means, notwithstanding to act, and does act 
from a ' primary' regard to himself. And if this 
is the highest principle of action to a holy being, 
then an angel and a devil stand on the same 
ground as to moral character ; in other words, 
there is no distinction between holiness and sin," 
— Letters on Revivals, pp. 88, 89. 

The views contained in the foregoing extracts 
are the views which have been maintained by the 
great body of orthodox ministers in New Eng- 
land on this subject. 

I am yours, very affectionately. 



166 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

power of the Holy Ghost. They maintain, with 
Dr. Beecher and Mr. Finney, that the influence 
of the Spirit in regeneration, is a persuasive in- 
fluence exerted through the medium of truth or 
motives. This, therefore, may be regarded as a 
prominent doctrine of new divinity. 

That this is utterly at variance with the views 
of our standard New England divines, is what I 
shall now attempt to show. 

President Edwards. " Observe that the 
question with some is, whether the Spirit of God 
does any thing at all in these days, since the 
scriptures have been completed. With those 
that allow that he does any thing, the question 
cannot be, whether his influence be immediate ; 
for if he does any thing at all, his influence must 
be immediate." " The Apostle says, ( In whom ye 
are circumcised with the circumcision made with- 
out hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the 
flesh, by the circumcision of Christ. 5 This phrase, 
made without hands, in scripture, always denotes 
God's immediate power, above the course of na- 
ture, above second causes." " There are two 
things relating to the doctrine of efficacious 
grace, wherein lies the main difference between 
Calvinists and Arminians as to this doctrine. 
First, that the grace of God is determining and 
decisive as to the conversion of a sinner, or a 
man's becoming a good man, and having those 
virtuous qualifications that entitle him to an in- 
terest in Christ and his salvation. Second, that 
the power and grace and operation of the Holy 
Spirit in, or towards the conversion of a sinner, 
is immediate, that the habit of true virtue or ho- 
liness is immediately implanted or infused ; that 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 167 

the operation goes so far, that a man has habitu- 
al holiness given to him instantly, wholly by the 
operation of the Spirit of God, and not gradually 
by assistance concurring with our endeavors.'' — 
Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 176, 182, 187, 
220. 

Dr. Bellamy. " In regeneration, there is a 
new, divine, and holy taste and relish begotten 
in the heart by the immediate influence of the 
Spirit of God." " That the idea of a natural 
beauty supposes an internal sense, implanted by 
our Creator, by which the mind is capacitated to 
discern such kind of beauty, is clearly illustrated 
and proved, by a late ingenious philosopher. 
And that the idea of spiritual sense, communi- 
cated to the soul by the Spirit of God, in the 
work of the new creation, is also as clearly il- 
lustrated and proved, by a late divine, whose 
praise is in all the churches." " Are men regen- 
erated by the law or by the gospel ? If, by re- 
generated, is meant enabled to see the holy beauty 
of divine truths, we are regenerated neither by 
the law nor by the gospel, nor by any external 
means or instructions whatsoever, but by the im- 
mediate influence of the Holy Spirit.'' — Bella- 
my's Works, Vol I. pp. 502, 503, 532. 

Dr. Hopkins. " The divine operation in re- 
generation, of which the new heart is the effect, 
is immediate, or it is not wrought by the energy 
of any means as the cause of it, but by the im- 
mediate power and energy of the Holy Spirit. 
It is called a creation, and the divine agency in 
it is as much without any medium, as in creating 
something from nothing. Men are not regene- 
rated in the sense in which we are now consider- 



168 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

ing regeneration, by light or the word of God. 
This is evident from what hath been said under 
the last particular. If the evil eye which is total 
darkness, and shuts all the light out, be the evil 
corrupt heart of man, then his corrupt heart 
must be renewed, in order to there being any true 
light in the mind, and previous to it. There 
must be a discerning heart, which is the same 
with the new heart, in order to see the light ; 
and therefore this cannot be produced by light." 
— Hopkins' System, Vol. 1 , p. 457. 

Dr. Dwight. " The soul of Adam was cre- 
ated with a relish for spiritual objects. The 
soul of every man, who becomes a Christian, is 
renewed by the communication of the same rel- 
ish." " It has been extensively supposed, that 
the Spirit of grace regenerates mankind, by com- 
municating to them new, clear, and juster views 
of spiritual objects. The understanding being 
thus enlightened and convinced, the heart, it is 
supposed, yields itself to this conviction; and 
the man spontaneously becomes, under its influ- 
ence, a child of God. I shall not attempt here 
to describe the metaphysical nature of the work 
of regeneration ; yet it appears to me clear, that 
the account which I have now given of this sub- 
ject, is not scriptural nor just. Without a rel- 
ish for spiritual objects, I cannot see that any 
discoveries concerning them, however clear and 
bright, can render them pleasing to the soul. If 
they are unpleasing in their very nature, they 
cannot be made agreeable by having that nature 
unfolded more clearly. He who disrelishes the 
taste of wine, will not relish it the more, the more 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 169 

distinctly and perfectly he perceives that taste. 
Nor will any account of its agreeableness to 
others, however, clearly given, and with what- 
ever evidence supported, render the taste agreea- 
ble to him. To enable him to relish it, it seems 
indispensable that his own taste should be chang- 
ed, and in this manner fitted to realize the pleas- 
antness of the wine. Light is either evidence, 
or the perception of it; evidence of the true na- 
ture of the object which is contemplated, or the 
perception of that evidence. But the great diffi- 
culty in the present case is this : the nature of 
the object perceived is disrelished. The more 
then it is perceived, the more it must be disrel- 
ished of course, so long as the present taste con- 
tinues. It seems therefore indispensable, that, 
in order to the usefulness of such superior light 
to the mind, its relish with respect to spiritual 
objects should first be changed." — DwighVs 
Theology, Vol 1. pp. 419, 422. 

Dr. Smalley. "If it be true that man is by 
nature totally depraved in the spirit of his mind, 
it is a plain case, that the beginning of holiness 
in him can be no otherwise than by a new crea- 
tion. When spiritual life is once begun in the 
soul, in however low a degree, it may be preserv- 
ed and increased by moral means ; as well as 
any plant or animal can be kept alive, and made 
to grow by natural means. But the first produc- 
tion of the radical principle of this life, can no 
more be the effect of any second cause, than the 
first root or seed of any plant or tree could have 
been produced by rain, sunshine, and cultiva- 
tion." " It is easy to conceive that whatever 
propensities of nature one previously has, may 
15 



170 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

be brought into exercise by arguments and mo- 
tives adapted to operate upon such propensities. 
But how to bring into existence a propensity of 
nature or principle of action radically new, and 
essentially different from every thing in the na- 
tive mind of man, is the great difficulty. It is a 
plain case, I think, that it can never be brought 
to life, otherwise than by being, in a proper and 
strict sense, created in them again." — Smalley's 
Sermons, pp. 287, 289, 290. 

Dr. Griffin. " How can the motives of re- 
ligion be the instruments of producing a new 
disposition, when that disposition must exist be- 
fore the motives can take hold of the heart ? Or 
the question may be decided by fact. Have not 
all these motives assailed the heart for many 
years, without taking away a particle of its oppo- 
sition ? For months together have they not been 
set home upon the conscience, without at all 
weakening the enmity? How comes it to pass, 
then, that, at length, in one moment, they enter 
the heart, and rise to supreme dominion ? Have 
they all at once broken their way through, and 
assisted in new-modelling a heart, on which, till 
that moment, they could have no influence ? The 
decisive question is, was the power applied to the 
motives to open a passage for themselves, or to 
the heart to open a passage for them ? Let the 
event declare — the heart was new before the mo- 
tives entered." — Park Street Lectures, pp. 157, 
158. 

Dr. Porter. " In regeneration, it has been 
said, the sinner's heart is changed by the influ- 
ence of truth and motives, presented by God ; 
just as one man's mind is changed in any case 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 171 

by the persuasion of another. How does the or- 
ator persuade his hearers ? By appeals to their 
understanding, conscience, passion, interest, 
&,c. ; that is, by addressing principles that are in 
the men already, — principles that are in all men. 
He operates on their minds by an objective in- 
fluence ; by the presentation of external motives 
adapted to sway their purpose. This is all he 
can do. But is this all that God can do ? 
He addresses men by the solemn motives 
of the gospel, through preaching, and other 
external means of persuasion. But is this all 
that he can do ? Certainly not ; for besides the 
presentation of motives, through the instrumen- 
tality of second causes, he can exert an immediate 
influence on minds, such as no man has the pow- 
er of exerting on another man; and this is the 
influence which he does exert in regeneration. 
To deny this, is to deny special grace. For if 
regeneration is produced by an influence the same 
as that employed by one man on the mind of an- 
other, in common persuasion ; certainly it is not, 
in any sense, a supernatural work. It takes 
place according to the laws of nature, in the or- 
dinary course of cause and effect." — Letters on 
Revivals, pp. 84, 85. 

Such are the views which have been uniformly 
maintained by New England Calvinists on this 
subject. The opposite theory is an old Pelagi- 
an theory revived. I do not know of a writer, 
claiming to be a Calvinist, who ever advanced 
this theory, till these modern theologians arose. 
I am yours, very affectionately. 



LETTER XVIII. 

May 18, 1837. 

My Dear Brother : 

Dr. Taylor, in his letter to Dr. Hawes, says: 
" I believe that all who are renewed by the Holy 
Spirit are elected or chosen of God from eternity, 
that they should be holy ; not on account of 
foreseen faith or good works, but according to 
the good pleasure of his will." 

This statement, taken by itself in its most ob- 
vious meaning, would seem to contain a correct 
view of the doctrine of election, as maintained 
by Calvinists. But when we compare this state- 
ment with other statements made by him and his 
associates, we are compelled to conclude that he 
must attach to the language a meaning entirely 
different from that in which it has been commonly 
received. The grand question at issue between 
Arminians and Calvinists, on this subject, is, and 
ever has been, whether election is conditional or 
unconditional ; in other words, whether God has 
elected some to everlasting life, because he fore- 
saw they would comply with the terms of salva- 
tion or whether their compliance is a consequence 



NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 173 

of their election. The Arminians maintain that 
God truly desires, all things considered, that all 
men should become holy and be saved — that he 
not only offers salvation to all, but does all that 
he can, consistently with their moral freedom, to 
induce all to comply with the conditions of par- 
don. They maintain also, that sinners may 
effectually resist the grace of God, and thus ren- 
der it impossible for God to convert them. The 
purpose of election, according to them, is God's 
eternal purpose to save those who, he foresaw, 
would cease to resist his grace, and submit to his 
authority. 

The Calvinists, on the other hand maintain 
that such is the depravity of the human heart, 
that no man will comply with the conditions of 
pardon, until he is made willing in the day of 
God's power. They maintain also, that the rea- 
son why God does not secure the holiness and 
happiness of all his moral creatures, is not be- 
cause he is unable to do it, but because he does 
not see it to be, on the whole, for the best; that 
for wise reasons, which he has not revealed, he 
has determined to make some the trophies of his 
grace, and to leave others to persist in sin and 
perish. 

That the views of the New Haven divines on 
this subject are essentially Arminian, is what I 
shall now undertake to show. And, 

In the first place, they maintain that " God, all 
things considered, prefers holiness to sin, in all 
instances in which the latter takes place." If 
this be so, it must be God's choice, all things 
considered, that all men should become holy and 
be saved, and his infinite benevolence will 
15* 



174 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

prompt him to do all in his power to bring all 
men to repentance. Accordingly they say, Ch. 
Spec. 1832, p. 660 : " God, not only prefers, on 
the whole, that his creatures should forever per- 
form their duties, rather than neglect them ; but 
purposes, on his part to do all in his power to 
promote this very object, in his kingdom." But 
if God does all in his power to bring all men to 
repentance, then the distinction between saints 
and sinners does not result from the sovereign 
purpose and election of God, but from man's free 
will. It is not true that God will have mercy on 
whom he will have mercy, for he would have 
mercy on all if he could. " He would have 
prevented all sin in his moral universe, but could 
not." 

Again. The New Haven divines maintain 
that sinners may so resist the grace of God as to 
render it impossible for God to convert them. 
" In all cases, it (the grace of God) may be 
resisted by man as a free moral agent, and it 
never becomes effectual to salvation till it is 
unresisted;" that is, till the selfish principle is 
suspended, and the sinner ceases to sin, and be- 
gins to use the means of regeneration. " Free 
moral agents can do wrong under all possible 
preventing influence. Using their powers as 
they may use them, they will sin." "We know 
that a moral system implies the existence of free 
agents, with power to act in despite of all oppo- 
sing power. If this be so, what election can 
there be except what is founded on foreseen 
repentance and faith? Most certainly, according 
to this theory, before God could have purposed 
to save any individuals, he must have foreseen 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 175 

that those individuals would cease to resist his 
grace, and thus render it possible for him to con- 
vert them. His purpose to save them, therefore, 
must have been grounded on the foresight of their 
submission. 

Again. The statements of this doctrine, con- 
tained in the Christian Spectator, evidenly pro- 
ceed on the same supposition. 

u God offers the same necessary conditions of 
acceptance to all men ; desires from the heart 
that all men, as free agents, would comply with 
them and live ; brings no positive influence upon 
any mind against compliance ; but, on the con- 
trary, brings all those kinds, and all that degree 
of influence in favor of it upon each individual, 
which a system of measures best arranged for 
the success of grace in a world of rebellion 
allows ; and finally, saves, without respect of kin- 
dred, rank, or country ; whether Scythian, Greek, 
or Jew, all who, under this influence, accept the 
terms, and work out their own salvation, and rep- 
robates alike all who refuse." — Christian Specta- 
tor, 1831, p. 635. 

According to this representation, the purpose 
of election is simply God's determination to save 
those who, he foresaw, would accept the terms of 
pardon. This is still more explicitly expressed 
in the following passage : 

" The means of reclaiming grace, which meet 
him in the word and spirit of God, are those by 
which the father draws, induces just such sinners 
as himself voluntarily to submit to Christ ; and 
these means all favor the act of his immediate 
submission. To this influence he can yield, and 
thus be drawn of the Father. This influence he 



176 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

can resist, and thus harden his heart against 
God. Election involves nothing more, as it re- 
spects his individual case, except one fact — the 
certainty to the divine mind, whether the sinner 
will yield to the means of grace, and voluntarily 
turn to God, or whether he will continue to hard- 
en his heart till the means of grace are with- 
drawn."— Id. p. 637. 

Now, what is this but the Arminian view of 
election founded on the foresight of faith and 
obedience ? God employs the best means which 
his wisdom can devise to bring all men to repent- 
ance. He draws, induces them to submit to 
Christ. Every sinner can yield to these means, 
or he can resist them. Election involves nothing 
more, except one fact, the certainty to the 
divine mind ; that is, the divine foreknowledge, 
" whether the sinner will yield to the means of 
grace, &c." In other words, the purpose of elec- 
tion is God's purpose to save all who he foresaw 
would obey the gospel. This is the very doctrine 
which the Arminians have always maintained. 
They say again : 

" The purpose of election, rightly interpreted, 
then, in our view, brings the God of justice and 
grace into immediate contact with our rebellious 
world, staying the execution of justice, and urg- 
ing gracious terms of reconciliation on men, on 
purpose to bring the matter to a speedy issue, 
and to gain whom, in the methods of his wisdom 
he can, over to his authority and kingdom." — Id. 
p. 638. 

Here again we are brought to the same point. 
God's purpose of election, is his purpose to gain 
as many of the human race as he can. But what 



OF NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 177 

election is this, if God did, all things considered, 
desire the salvation of Judas as much as the sal- 
vation of Peter, and if he did all in his power to 
secure the happiness and holiness of Judas, how 
can it be said that Peter was elected in distinc- 
tion from Judas 1 Who made them to differ 1 

That this view of the doctrine of election dif- 
fers widely from that which has been maintained 
by the orthodox divines of New England, might 
be shown by abundant quotations from their wri- 
tings. I shall give only a few specimens. 

President Edwards. " It is most absurd to 
call such a conditional election as they talk of, 
by the name of election, seeing there is a neces- 
ary connection between faith in Jesus Christ and 
eternal life. Those that believe in Christ must 
be saved according to God's inviolable constitu- 
tion of things. But if they say that election is 
only God's determination in the general, that all 
that believe shall be saved, in what sense can 
this be called election 1 They are not persons 
that are here chosen, but mankind is divided into 
two sorts, the one believing, and the other unbe- 
lieving, and God chooses the believing sort ; it is 
not election of persons, but of qualifications. 
God does, from all eternity choose to bestow 
eternal life upon those who have a right to it, 
rather than upon those who have aright to dam- 
nation. Is this all the election we have an ac- 
count of in God's word ?" " God, in the decree 
of election, is justly to be considered as decree- 
ing the creature's eternal happiness antecedently 
to any foresight of good works, in a sense where- 
in he does not in reprobation decree the crea- 
ture's eternal misery, antecedently to any fore- 
sight of sin ; because the being of sin is suppo- 



178 ORIGIN AND PROGRESS 

sed in the first place in order to the decree of 
reprobation, which is, that God will glorify his 
vindVtive justice, and the very notion of reveng- 
ing justree, simply considered, supposes a fault to 
be revenged. But faith and good works are not 
supposed, in the first place, in order to the de- 
cree of election." — Mi seel Obs. pp. 150, 162. 

Dr. Hopkins. " The elect are not chosen to 
salvation rather than others, because of any moral 
excellence in them, or out of respect to any fore- 
seen faith and repentence, or because their moral 
characters are in any respect better than others. 
The difference between them and others, in this 
respect, whenever it takes place, is the fruit and 
consequence of their election, and not the ground 
and reason of it. All mankind are totally sin- 
ful, wholly lost, undone, in themselves infinitely 
guilty and ill deserving. And all must perish 
forever, were it not for electing grace ; were they 
not selected from the rest and given to the Re- 
deemer, to be saved by him, and so made vessels 
of mercy prepared unto glory." — Hopkins' Sys- 
tem, Vol II, 143, 151. 

Dr. Smalley. " The scripture doctrine of 
election I understand to be this ; that a certain 
number of mankind, including all who will actu- 
ally be saved, were chosen of God to salvation 
from all eternity; in such an absolute manner, 
that it is impossible any one of them should 
finally be lost." " It is a wrong notion of the 
doctrine of election, to suppose that God's choice 
of persons as the heirs of grace and glory, was 
grounded on his foreknowledge of their faith and 
works." "If he foresaw that any number of 
them would cordially believe and obey the gos- 



OF TnEW haven theology. 179 

pel, it must be because he determined to put such 
an heart in them. Consequently, his electing 
them to eternal life, could not be grounded on his 
foreknowledge of their doing the things requir- 
ed, in order to their salvation ; but his foreknowl- 
edge that they would do these things, must have 
been grounded on his purpose to give them effec- 
tual grace, working in them to will and to do, of 
his crood pleasure. ;; — Smaller/' s Sermons, pp. 260, 
264, 266. 

Dr. Griffin. " The only question is, what 
does God perform? What does he accomplish 
by positive power I What does he permit ? If 
it is a fact that he chancres one sinner, and per- 
mits another to take his course to ruin, he always 
intended to do the same.' 5 " The doctrine of 
election, thus necessarily deduced from that of 
regeneration, is abundantly supported by the word 
of God. There we are distinctly taught that 
God eternally elected a part of mankind, not on 
account of their foreseen holiness, but to holi- 
ness itself." — Park Street Lectures, pp. 174, 175. 

Dr. Woods. " Whenever God first makes 
men holy, he must do it without regard to any 
goodness in them. He can look at no works of 
righteousness which they have done, but must 
act from the impulse of his own infinite love. 
And we are to view the purpose of God in rela- 
tion to this subject, as in all respects corres- 
ponding to his acting. It seems then perfectly 
clear, that God did not determine to regenerate 
men or make them holy, from any foresight of 
repentance, faith, or good works, as conditions 
or causes moving him thereunto. The first pro- 
duction of holiness cannot surely have respect to 



180 NEW HAVEN THEOLOGY. 

any previous holiness." — Reply to Dr. Ware, p 
157. 

I might easily multiply quotations. But these 
may be regarded as a fair specimen of the views 
which have been uniformly entertained of this 
doctrine by New England Calvinists. 

And now, my dear brother, having protracted 
this series of letters much beyond my original 
intention, I propose, for a season at least, to re- 
lieve your patience, and that of your numerous 
readers to whom they have been given through 
the press. My object has been to give you a 
plain, unvarnished narration of facts relating to 
matters of great interest at the present day. 
The story is, in many respects, a painful one, 
but it seems important that the truth should be 
known. I have stated nothing as fact, of which 
I have not either personal knowledge, or inform- 
ation from sources in which I repose the fullest 
confidence. Should it hereafter appear that I 
have fallen into any mistakes, I shall esteem it 
not only a duty but a privilege to correct them. 
While I have felt it my duty to speak freely of 
the opinions of living men, I have intended to do 
it with kindness and candor. I certainly am not 
concious of any unfriendly feelings towards those 
brethren from whom I differ in opinion. My 
prayer is that we may yet see eye to eye, and 
again lift up our voices together in defence of 
the faith once delivered to the saints. 

Yours very affectionately. 



LlDKHrCI 



ur luiwkew 



021 898 870 2 



